Originally posted by Lo:

"Well, actually, I just wanted to distinguish the article itself from my own "speech" pattern. I wote my part in normal type, wrote the quote from Nasrallah in italics and the article itself in bold as a way of distinguishing the three speakers from one another."

I'll buy that.

"Besides, anyone who knows me knows that I never shout...."

Have never heard your voice. Just didn't think Charles deserved the push.

Did I come even close to persuading you that his writing is, uh, party line? People on this thread have denigrated a truly great reporter, Robert Fisk, a guy who's risked his life again and again to dig out facts from the Middle East. It irks me to read Charles K. musing on the tribulations of the distant lands. He's a shill. Makes his money the easy way.

Bob

I once saw a televised debate about the Iraq war, with Fisk and another jounalist (can't remember his name, but very much of Charles's persuasion). In any case the man had never actually been to Iraq. Fisk offered, courteously (and sincerely I believe) to take him on a tour of Iraq and show him what he was talking about. The guy bridled at this and refused, rather ungraciously; he had absolutely NO sense of humour, a bad sign in a journalist (or anyone else).

Although I don't like Krauthammer as a rule, and use to adamantly oppose his hawkishness on Israel, I thought this was a fairly good read. I thought less of the Clawson gloss, about which more presently.

First, one side-note: Krauthammer was writing fairly recently that the war was a tie, and that in the middle east, "Tie goes to the terrorist." I remember that line because I thought it was good enough to quote. One of the perils of writing a good line is that even in the age of the web, when the written word may not even line a bird cage for a month before it flies off into archival memory, a good line (and thus a good argument) will still be remembered, when events conspire to change the author's tune.

On to the Clawson gloss.

1. (in response to Krauthammer's quote of Nasrallah saying he wouldn't do it again, if he had it to do over):
This played well in Lebanon. He's talking about the stunning response. He also wants to get off the hook, which he apparently has. Lucky fellow.

"Apparently he has [gotten off the hook]" with whom, CNN? Someone turned himself in for the Jon Benet killing, and all politics stopped in Lebanon? There was, and still is, a majority of Lebanon which is not happy about Hezbollah's mistakes. Admitting to the mistakes may play better than saying "we'll subject this country to whatever we want, screw you all!" but I do not think it's going to win over a lot of the other communities in Lebanon -- the majority -- who would prefer to live in peace. You seem to have intelligence that Nasrallah is about to be elected prime minister there. This intelligence is flawed. Krauthammer has it right, to listen to Jumblatt and Aoun, and even Siniora. You have it wrong.
http://www.cedarsrevolution.org/
Lebanese democrats from around the world, of several faiths, who prefer the March 14 achievement to the Hezbollah disaster; you'll likely hate them.

Bear in mind the revolution Lebanon achieved was against Syrian rule, the last of the foreign overlords in recent history - and no, I am not talking about a month long campaign, in self defense, against one aggressive "NGO". Hezbollah is a Syrian and Iranian client, and alone, retains the means to thrust Lebanon into undeclared war. Though the recent war loomed larger on its eve, this fact is not lost on the Lebanese people either. Israel's out of Lebanon; Hezbollah remains.

2. Clawson sings the praises of Nasrallah, in response to Krauthammer's assertion that he has not achieved a victory. Nasrallah is "politically shrewd," is the [only?] one who's "still in the game," and has "reaped industrial-strength support across the Arab world because instead of being quickly defeated as usual, held the IDF at bay." Further, Krauthammer is an "old painter," who has painted the same picture over and over.

Well, aside from the fact that he painted a different picture a couple of weeks ago ("tie goes to the terrorist,") I find Krauthammer's understanding of the current situation much more nuanced than those of the gloss. I take it that K.'s understanding is dated, and meant to serve his ideology? Mr. Clawson needs to remove the log from his own eye. This is a collection of cliches, some demonstrably incorrect. For example, the Arab world has been deafeningly silent in its cheerleading for Hezbollah (as K. points out in this very article.) It is non-Arab Iran which joins Clawson in admiration for Hezbollah. Syria has recently at least claimed it will aid in interdicting arms to Hezbollah. Now don't get me wrong, I think Syria is lying. But if conspiracy on the part of a single Arab nation to secretly support Hezbollah - as opposed to openly doing so - counts as garnering overwhelming support, your definition can at best be called slanted, and at worst, simply a case of ignorance or propaganda.

3. Clawson makes several points next meant to refute the notion that Hezbollah lost the war on the ground. Among them:
- Hezbollah fired their largest number of rockets -- that is, dropped explosives through the air on civilian targets -- at the end of the war (this after the horror expressed that Israel launched its most serious munitions in the same time period)
- The Israelis established only one position "at the [Litani?] River," despite the fact that Israel at no time expressed desire to take and hold Lebanese territory

Now that Mr. Clawson is again staking his argument on his skills as a military tactician, it becomes expedient to talk about "position[s] at the river," the "dismayed" Israeli troops, the "lumber[ing]" Israeli tanks being blasted by rocket fire, etc. Now that Mr. Clawson is a military tactician -- evidently one who has been shuttling to and from battlefields, unlike the Washington-bound Krauthammer -- perhaps he should take a moment of time back at the safety of his Massachusetts office to examine the number of IDF versus Hezbollah combatants lost. And now that the goal is "victory" rather than sympathy, Mr. Clawson finds it expedient to praise Hezbollah for firing off its most destructive "last shot" at "enemy" civilians on the eve of cease-fire, while the Israeli "last shot" is lambasted as inhumane and aimed at children.

Regarding the Hezbollah "propaganda victory," which K. reexamines (to less pro-Hezbollah conclusions), we learn through the Clawson gloss:
We have to realize that Charles is not reporting from the ground, where the dust settles over the ruins. Several reporters for several papers and electronic media have interviewed Lebanese who confirm that the Mullah's claims are spot on.

"Charles" writes analysis, which is why this is an op-ed piece, though Clawson's faith in sound journalism should be evident from earlier discussions of Reuters' doctored photos, Hezbollywood posed atrocities, faithfully repeated and never fact-checked (or questioned) body counts, etc. A necessary corollary of this attitude is that Israeli counts could not be real, and Lebanese counts must be real, despite evidence that suppliers of the Lebanese numbers were purposefully exaggerating wartime misery, and despite the fact that no such evidence suggests mistrust of Israeli figures. This is why I find it a bit disingenuous to declare from Massachusetts that Krauthammer is safe and sound in Washington.

More to the point: Have we been reading/hearing reports from places that were not under Hezbollah rule? Certainly not in the majority of cases. Have we been seeing/reading them within the last 2 weeks? They've been pushed aside, on the networks. Again, Jon Benet is more important. In other words, reports "on the ground" are news, if you've just been bombed. Ask someone from the Shouf how he feels, and it's likely different from a Beiruti from the Hezbollah controlled areas. Ask someone in the South, particularly a Hezbollah supporter, who has just lost his home, and what do you think he's going to say? Hezbollah was popular among the people that hosted them, and why not? They pumped the region full of Iranian petrodollars. They still are popular there. That is about all we can say at the moment.

If we can talk about a polity as large as Lebanon, however, we see opinions from Lebanese expressing both points of view. This to me is telling, so soon after a foreign nation attacks. How many people questioned our war in Afghanistan, versus Iraq? I think the majority of Lebanese are wise to Hezbollah; I think their "closing ranks" was never as complete as reported (in fact, having read Jumblatt's responses, I know this,) and I think that effect faded very quickly. To sum up, it's at least as valid to say that Lebanese could see this as a result of a Hezbollah provocation, as to say Lebanese see the recent war as an attack on Lebanese soil.

Mr. Clawson notes that Israel did not wipe out Hezbollah, its "stated purpose." I agree. Mr. Clawson also argues that Israel did not practice restraint. I disagree.

Israel did not use every means at her disposal. Israel did not destroy the entirety of Hezbollah. Israel could have done so. Somewhere between what did happen and what could have happened in total war, lies the point where Israel could have destroyed Hezbollah and disengaged. The calculation, of course, is that to utterly destroy Hezbollah, Israel will have to incur too much Western sympathy reaction. It is indeed foolish to declare that a goal is the man-by-man destruction of a guerilla force, if you are unwilling to take the bad PR. It is, however, equally unwise to simultaneously argue that a nation did not kill enough people, and that it did not exercise restraint, particularly when one is aware that said nation is in possession of arms one considers "barbaric," and when one portrays said nation's responses, regardless of scope, as "overreaction."

One is forced to choose: invoke sympathy because the enemy is too destructive, or invoke triumphalism because the enemy is not destructive enough. One cannot simultaneously hold both positions and expect to be taken seriously.

The gloss from this point onward devolves into the predictable semantic and quasi-geopolitical arguments. Krauthammer says "maginot line" and "vast," for example, and notes the Arab countries which sided against Hezbollah. All of these are "neo-con" gambits, because those aren't real Arab countries. I take it the real Arab country -- the only real supporter Hezbollah has -- was Syria. And we've talked about the support "garnered" for Hezbollah in Damascus.

I have to note, though, I do feel the author's pain, on the count of semantics. My personal favorite is the use of "massive" on the part of Israel bashers. We're always reading of "massive disproportionality," "massive attacks," "massive destruction," etc. In short, as regards Israel, we usually read the word "massive" in lieu of a numerical quantity, which apparently is not as convincing, or not available. So Krauthammer's "vast" probably hits you the same way.

By the way, switching to Gaza, there is not a "vast" network of tunnels there leading into Israel proper. There are 13 identified. A "vast" number of terrorists cannot sneak through it. A few score can. The damage done by them would not be "massive." It would be deaths in the scores over the next few years. It is still wrong.

Similarly, in Lebanon, there was not a "vast" "maginot line." There was a network of fortifications and bunkers which should not be there. There were private homes being used as armories. There was an armed presence which by agreement among the states of the region was not accepted.

The truth? Some of this has changed, but not enough. Whether K. is right about a "round 2" depends on whether the international force takes its obligations seriously, and whether it will make use of its somewhat liberalized rules of engagement.

But as for the remainder of the Krauthammer article, it's a good deal more informative than the Clawson gloss, which begins with Nasrallah cheerleading, and concludes with semantic nitpicking. The best of Clawson's points, is catching Krauthammer crediting the Lebanese March 14 movement to American conservative politics. However, Clawson seems unaware of the import of that revolution to the Lebanese. One does not have to disregard that revolution to maintain one's American left credentials; one merely needs to see it as the work of Lebanese democrats and not American neo-cons.

The self-contradictory, internally inconsistent attitudes that the Left in this country adopts when the subject of Israel comes up is well illustrated here.

For that demonstration, Mr. Clawson, we who oppose Nasrallah's brand of terrorism thank you.

Dan

It would be difficult for Krauthammer to travel to the middle east. He's in a wheelchair. He has an MD in Psychiatry.

Dick,

I've met Krauthammer, actually -- just long enough to shake hands, not long enough to "speak out of turn" and take him to task for our (at the time) widely divergent opinions of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

He's consistently right-wing, and in many regards, from my point of view, consistently wrong. I do think he's right -- as in, correct -- on Israel.

I understand that this Fisk character is important to the Brits or Aussies, though the name is not commonly known here. Krauthammer (notice how he's "Charlie" whereas the unknown, self-declared subjective writer is "Fisk,") at least espouses his views from the point of view that there is a truth to get at, eventually, rather than writing propaganda tracts for the people he cozies up to, on the Fisk model.

Given the behavior of the terrorists often lauded here, however, were Krauthammer to report "from the trenches," I think he would be in more hot water on the basis of his ethnicity, than on the basis of his handicap.

That is, unless he were to make the trip over via cruise ship.

Dan

Ummm, no, you didn't, but then again, it's not my ,uh, "party" we're talking about. I posted the editorial just for what it was - an editorial - and an interesting one. One I agree with, perhaps, but still not something which should have been totally disagreeable to those whom disagree with me.

Also, once again, just for the record, I never "denigrated" Robert Fisk....I simply said that a reporter who admits his own bias and one who has stated outright that, "There is a misconception that journalists can be objective." is just not someone I'm going to put a whole lot of faith in.

Fisk seems to know a good deal about Lebanon where he resides and nearly nothing about Israel - where he doesn't reside. Much like most of us, I suppose. But, he also seems to pursue his own agenda almost to the exclusion of straight journalism and he consistantly allows points to be warped by perspective....which makes him unobjective and untrustworthy as a new source.

In plainer English, why on earth would I want to get my "facts" on the Middle East from a journalist who has publically stated that journalistic neutrality is "no longer relevant" to the Middle East?

Krauthammer is an editorialist - Fisk is a journalist. I expect opinion from one and I expect facts from the other and I never expect to meet Mark Twain.

Lo

Lo, you're making far too much of Fisk's lack of neutrality. I think his point was that virtually no committed journalist is completely 'neutral'; journalists are humans after all. I also imagine he had in mind the spirit of Milosz's line: 'no such thing as an innocent bystander.'

In other words he was being bluntly honest, even though it left his words open to misinterpretation. But I am sure that Fisk would think it incumbent on ANY journalist worth his/her salt to combine compassion with understanding, historical knowledge and experience, as he does. I just don't believe the journalists you've cited measure up in anything like the same way. I don't think either of them are really interested in the truth so much as their opinion (and yes, of course there's a place for that kind of thing; newspapers are full of it).

But I'm open to reading a different, seriously considered point of view. Since you make so much of neutrality in journalism perhaps you'd like to give an example of someone you believe to be truly neutral, unbiased, with absolutely NO agenda. Any suggestions?

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 04, 2006).]

As a side-note to our debate on Fisk, Krauthammer, et. al: Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to U.N. mediation on the release of Israeli soldiers. No specific mention has been made (as yet) of a prisoner "swap."

Now, back to journalism 101.

Dan

Throughout all of this I've tried to be faily careful about always saying "I think" or "I believe" before making a dogmatic assertion about the way things are going in the Middle East....or anywhere else for that matter. I've also tried very hard to always state that whatever "source" I cited was either "an editorial" or a "news story." I realize there is a difference between the two which is a distinction that it seems not too many others here are willing to make.

In fact, many times I went deliberately searching for opposing "newstories" from the ones posted here simply to prove to people that they're "out there" if you're only willing to look for them.

I think my real point, since this is, after all, a board about writing and not about politics, is that you mostly can't believe anything you read because it's ALL going to be based on personal belief because it is a person who is doing the writing.

Television news shows are not much better....the reporters there could conceivable just state the news, but news stations are owned by someone and those someones are going to want "their" opinions to be the ones which hold sway with the viewers.

The fact that we can all choose to read as many or as few different reporters as possible is a good fact....it's especially good if we take advantage of it - Left, RIght and Center, as it were.

It's only natural that "I" will almost always use sources which I agree with....just as it's only natural "You" will almost always use sources which you agree with....and since there are such a multitude of sources out there.....we can go on happily quoting them for eternity.

It's not like God or anything......there isn't just "one True" and Absolute News Source. (although I think the Republicans would like us to think it is....and Fox is its voice)

Much of what I have come to believe about the situation in Lebanon/Israel is coming not from the television or from the newspaper or from the Internet...it's coming from history (which is damn hard to argue with) and from people I know personally who are close to the situation....I don't need to read Fisk in Lebanon when I've got _____ in Israel to talk to. Actually, I take that back, I DO read Fisk in Lebanon...I just don't trust him, that's all. What he has to say is usually interesting and it's often moving but then again, so are the stories I get from my friend......why would I find Fisk any more believable than I find my friend - especially if the stories are conflicting, which they often are...and especially if they both have an admitted "agenda" - Fisk whose agenda has been to convince us that Lebanon is now and always has been persecuted by Israel for no apparent reason at all and my friend whose agenda has been to dodge Hezbollah Katyusha's which were being regularily lobbed into her neighborhood.

Danial Haar has relatives and/or friends from Lebanon - I'm sure he hears stories from his "sources" as well...and they are, of course, going to differ from the stories from my "source"....which doesn't make any of them untrue, it simply makes them facts and stories from an involved party...and someone who's "involved" can never be impartial....which is one of the main beefs I have with accepting Fisk as a "reporter."

Be that as it may, my friends and Daniel's friends are civilians and as such, are not expected to be impartial or unbiased....Fisk, however, is not a civilian, he is a reporter and I hold him (and every other journalist) to higher standards....He should at least pretend to be fair-minded if he wants to be taken seriously by BOTH sides.

You've asked me to name a journalist that I find to be wholely impartial and truly neutral and I can't give you that...I can only keep doing what I've been doing - offering you a different perspective from your own, which is exactly what you've been doing for me each time you cite a story and a source.

However, if you give me a news picture of a downed Israeli jet fighter burning up and it turns out that it's not a jet plane after all, but some old tires in an empty lot....I AM going to call you on it.

I expect you'd do the same for me.

Lo

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"It is non-Arab Iran which joins Clawson in admiration for Hezbollah."

First of all, I've made it clear many times that I DON"T admire Hezbollah. I've called them "lunatics" and "morons." Please don't build your argument with me as straw man.

Secondly, I found Charles unconvincing, and attempted to demonstrate that. I don't think either side WON that war. NO WINNERS. NO "VICTORY." I think it was a stupid waste of life

Bob