JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

You say Israel, I say Hamas

Michael Slackman, writing from Cairo in The New York Times, reports that the Arab world rejects and resents the U.S. definition and application of the T-word:

If President Obama is serious about repairing relations with the Arab world and re-establishing the United States as an honest broker in Middle East peace talks, one step would be to bridge a chasm in perception that centers on one contentious word: terrorism.The recent fighting in Gaza offered a potent reminder of the challenge Washington faces in mediating a dispute when the United States refuses to speak directly with some of the main players, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which it calls terrorist groups. Whether the United States has declined to speak with hostile groups because it considers them terrorists, or whether it slaps the terrorist label on groups it wants to sanction or marginalize, a battle over the term terrorist has become a proxy for the larger issues that divide Washington and the Arab public.

The perception gap, which grew wider when President George W. Bush declared his war on terror in 2001, was blown even further apart in Gaza, when most Arabs came away certain who the real terrorists were.

“Public opinion views what happened in Gaza as a kind of terrorism,” said Muhammad Shaker, a former Egyptian ambassador to Britain. “And on the other side, they see Hamas and other such organizations as groups who are trying to liberate their countries.”

Many here said they saw little distinction between Hamas’s shooting rockets into civilian areas of Israel and Israel’s shooting rockets into civilian areas of Gaza, even if Hamas militants were operating there or just hiding out.

Israelis often focus on intent in drawing a distinction between Israel and Hamas — saying their forces kill civilians only as an unfortunate consequence of war while Hamas aims attacks at civilians. “The Israeli military effort is to neutralize the forces of aggression that have been used against its civilians, and there sometimes can be collateral damage,” said Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. “That happens in every war and every conflict.”

That argument convinces no one here, where the public is outraged that Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, while Israel is treated as a close friend.

  • Share Share
  • Share on Google+ Google+
  • Share on Facebook Facebook

Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments

02/26/09 08:08 PM

Of course, the Arab world probably doesn’t consider the Janjaweed militia in Darfur terrorists, even as they murder, rape and mutilate thousands.  Arabs define “terrorist” as someone who kills Arabs.
So who really cares what they think?

02/26/09 08:19 PM

I hate to use the word but it so appropriately describes Mr.Slackman.
Sir, you are truly a SHMUCK!

02/26/09 11:23 PM

The problem of anti-Israel bias goes beyond Slackman. The real problem rests with the fact that The New York Times, in what passes for its “coverage” of the conflict as well as in its commentary and predictable editorial rants, has abandoned all pretense of being anything other than a house organ for Arab terrorist partisans. Slackman being merely the latest dolt the paper has picked up to run its spin; the other side of this being that the “Gray Lady” is only playing to form with its selection of correspondents. ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE.

This abandonment of all claim to objectivity where it comes to the Times coverage of Israel might be taken for a serious problem. But there exist two saving graces still associated with the Times as it has come to be known and used: 1) the fact that its entire editorial content is continuously available for free (meaning that it’s priced for exactly what it is worth); and 2) the fact that the Times is all but certainly headed for bankruptcy court - and, thereafter oblivion - in any case.

All of which is not to say that the Times retains NO VALUE as a publication - surely William Kristol and Andrew Ross Sorkin are more than worth reading -, but merely to affirm the fact that the valuable “franchise” fixtures associated with the Times are, inevitably, perforce, and, most importantly, SOON going to be liberated from a publication which has become, on balance, a complete and total waste of its readers’ time.

Leave a Comment

To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.

Already a JTA member?

I forgot my password

Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!