*THAT HORROR FROM HAMAS*

*QUESTIONS ON IRAQ*

*WHY FLORIDA MATTERS*

“Is Hamas Targeting Us?” was the question of the day on Fox News, as all the news outlets continue to focus on the aftermath of the savage bombing yesterday of a cafeteria at the Hebrew University. The question is not totally off base, but it somehow assumes that the United States is not a party to the conflict–as opposed to a neutral third party.

President Bush responded by attacking Hamas as “killers who hate the thought of peace and therefore are willing to take their hatred to all kinds of places, including a university.”

It is hard to dispute his characterization of the “killers,” since this bomb, planted in a crowded cafeteria was an anti-personnel weapon filled with nails and other projectiles designed to maim and murder people. It has to be condemned as it has been, but condemnations alone, including five pages of mayhem in the New York Post, don’t offer up much insight about just what peace process was underway.

We all now await Israel’s response, which is likely to be as deadly–although not aimed at civilians.

MSNBC’s fill-in for Ashleigh Banfield went “on location” last night with a HAMAS political leader, who spoke in terms of “total war” — explaining that the remote-controlled bomb (a new tactic) was a retaliation to air attack by jet the Israelis — used to kill the top HAMAS ‘military’ leader in Gaza, who was responsible for the deaths of at least 200 Israelis in cafes, discos and pizzerias, and the “Passover Massacre–that also wiped out children and civilians in a crowded residential neighborhood–where the HAMAS was hiding.

He had called the US an ally and partner of Sharon — which is how Washington is viewed in that part of the world. While he spoke, MNBC showed B-roll of Sharon meeting Bush and Cheney to illustrate the point. The cable net noted that HAMAS has grown in influence — no doubt because Arafat’s Authority has been rendered impotent personally and politically. After so many killings occurred in Gaza, everyone knew that retaliation was to be expected — and it was.

Does that make it right? No way.

IS HATE THE PROBLEM?

There is a context that can’t be brushed aside with talk of hate and terror alone. As Mark Lavie of AP made clear: The blast - which killed seven and wounded more than 80 - occurred while Israel continued to occupy most Palestinian towns and cities in the West Bank …” President Bush made no reference to this occupation, which Palestinians insist is the only way to describe what is going on, even as Israel rejects this term to characterize what it insists is a legitimate security interest in ‘the territories.’”

There is, therefore, no agreement on what the problem is. HAMAS leaders spoke in terms of “resistance” and “struggle,” insisting that all peace efforts have failed. But this bombing, and the others targeting Israeli civilians, including Israeli Arabs and foreigners, hardly assure that talks can be resumed.

(Also, there is no evidence that HAMAS is targeting American targets. On the other hand CNN.com reports today, with little specific evidence: ” Al Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan and the U.S.-led war against terrorism are forming new “super cells,” according to sources.”)

REACTIONS ON ALL SIDES

Reactions and denunciations are mounting, but peace initiatives do not seem to be. Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, a newly forming network of professors and students from over 25 colleges and universities, condemned the attack:

“SPME calls for the perpetrators of such unconscionable actions be brought to immediate justice by the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli authorities.

SPME regards all acts of terror against civilians as “war crimes against humanity” and supports the recent statement of Amnesty International condemning these bombings as such.

“SPME makes special note that Hebrew University is an international university with a rich history of peace collaborative efforts with mainly international students on campus at this time of year with the high probability that students of many ethnic, cultural, religious, racial and national origins may have been killed or wounded. SPME believes that the choosing of Hebrew University by the Palestinians for massive terror signals a new escalation of the violence, indicating to terrorists around the world that even college and university campuses are fair game for terror.”

I share the worry, but I am not sure it is helpful to blame the attack on “THE PALESTINIANS,” as this statement does, when many Palestinians oppose tactics like these.

AN ARAB VIEW

Listen to Ali Abunimah, writing on abunimah.or ” Over the past week, we have heard and read many reports that the Gaza bombing also torpedoed a promising initiative in which Palestinian armed groups were to announce a moratorium on attacks against Israeli civilians. Many, inside and outside Israel have correctly blamed the government of Ariel Sharon for sabotaging this opportunity by going ahead with the Gaza attack. It seems obvious to Palestinians, to many Israelis and to a growing number of others, that Sharon has no interest in a ceasefire and that he wants the violence to continue because violence is necessary to his desire to maintain perpetual Israeli control over the West Bank.

” But we must also be honest and say that the opportunity was missed by the Palestinian militant groups. If a halt to an attack on Israeli civilians was in the interests of the Palestinian people before the Gaza bombing, it was even more in their interests afterwards.

“Leaving aside the immorality of blowing up children and non-combatants (whether they had the luck or misfortune–depending on how you see it–to be born Israelis or Palestinians), the whole world had recoiled in horror at the Israeli government’s tactics, which are in method and in effect almost indistinguishable from the ‘terrorists’ they claim to be fighting.

“The leaders of the Palestinian groups that have in the past claimed responsibility for bomb attacks on Israeli civilians could and should have declared that the horror in Gaza would be the last atrocity, that they would no longer play Sharon’s game. Instead they charged headlong into Sharon’s trap, once again.”" None of this ought to be.”

THE PAIN OF AN ISRAELI FATHER

An Israeli father who lost his son to a terror attack has joined a debate we rarely see reported in the US press or on TV. Yitzhak Frankenthal, Chairman of the Families Forum, told a rally in Jerusalem on Saturday, July 27, 2002

” Ethics are not black and white - they are all white. Ethics have to be free of vengefulness and rashness. Every act must be carefully weighed before a decision is made to see whether it meets the strict ethical criteria. Ethics cannot be left to the discretion of anyone who is frivolous or trigger-happy. Our ethics are hanging by a thread, at the mercy of every soldier and politician. I am not at all sure that I am willing to delegate my ethics to them.”It is unethical to kill innocent Israeli or Palestinian women and children. It is also unethical to control another nation and to lead it to lose its humaneness. It is patently unethical to drop a bomb that kills innocent Palestinians. It is blatantly unethical to wreak vengeance upon innocent bystanders. It is, on the other hand, supremely ethical to prevent the death of any human being. But if such prevention causes the futile death of others, the ethical foundation for such prevention is lost.”

THE OLD BLUE EYES CONNECTION

In case you are wondering what Frank Sinatra had to do with the cafeteria at Hebrew University (which also has a plaza named for Nancy Reagan,” here is some background from the Israeli consulate)

“In 1969, Frank Sinatra played a role as a Texas aviator in the Israeli Air Force in “Cast a Giant Shadow,” filmed in Israel. He donated his salary for the part to the Arab-Israeli Youth Center in Nazareth, which focuses on co-existence programs for children. In 1978, Sinatra went to Israel once again, to receive the National Scopus Award and the dedication of the Frank Sinatra International Student Center at the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University (another building named for him is the Frank Sinatra Youth Center in Nazareth).

At the Hebrew University campus, the names of a handful of past honorees are inscribed on a stone wall — Frank Sinatra, Albert Einstein, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg and others.

” Sinatra also made a significant contribution to the making of “Genocide,” a film about the Holocaust, and became a member of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Board of Trustees. Thereafter, Frank Sinatra made numerous appearances for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, and was directly responsible for raising additional funds for the film.”

UN: NO MASSACRE IN JENIN

The UN report on Jenin, long awaited but, one must recall, not compiled on the ground when Israel barred investigators from visiting the town’s refugee camp, which was the epicenter of a battle between Palestinians and the Israel, is out. It tends to echo the views of human rights groups, who did not confirm a massacre, but did criticize Israeli [and Palestinian] tactics: Edie Lederer of AP seems to have broken the story:

“A U.N. report on Israel’s military attack on a Palestinian refugee camp does not back up claims of a massacre, but it does criticize both sides for putting civilians in harm’s way, Western diplomats said Wednesday.

“The report accuses Israel of delaying aid and medical help to Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp. And it charges Palestinian militants with deliberately putting its fighters and equipment in civilian areas in violation of international law, according to the diplomats.

The violence in Jenin came during an Israeli offensive launched on March 29 in response to a suicide bombing that killed 29 Israelis. The heaviest fighting during the period was in the Jenin camp, where the Palestinians said Israeli attacks killed 500 people.”

A READER RESPONDS: THE DEBATE CONTINUES

The UN report and these continuing incidents of attacks and retaliations have only inflamed the debate on what is happening there — again, issues that need more scrutiny, prompting one of our readers, Stefanos Gris of Chicago, to ask: “Looking back, would you say Sharon’s hardline policy has been successful so far? Of course ’success’ means different things to different people, but I think most of your readers would agree it means a reduction in murders (whether these are by Israelis or by Palestinians). It seems to me like Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of the US public (and the government), and Sharon is exploiting this to escalate the violence and demonstrate how evil and undeserving of a sovereign state the Palestinians are. Is there really anyone who thinks firing missiles on an apartment building will prevent suicide bombings?”

SHOULD THE US ATTACK IRAQ?

Other questions are being raised by activists and policy critics alike about that other debate: should the US attack Iraq? Those are the issues being explored in Senate hearings, where some critical questions were heard. Here are some others from an email encouraging citizens to submit to the Congress:

“What is the concrete evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

How long will American troops be in Iraq? What’s the objective? What’s the plan to get out?

Do the State Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell support this war? What about the top military brass?

Why don’t our allies support this war?

If we attack, will Iraq find new allies in the region?

How many Americans will die in such a war? Iraqis?

How much money will such a war cost?

Why is America now attacking without explicit provocation?

President Bush is seen by people in other countries as pursuing a strange vendetta. Is the Bush administration pulling our country into a family grudge match?”

CALL IT A RECESSION.

The economic news is good in the USA. Suddenly the word recession is out of the closet and in fashion as growth figures show no growth. One reason — reported in today’s Financial Times in London but not here: “Top executives and directors of the biggest US business collapses amassed billions in salary and share sales while the stock market was still booming, according to a Financial Times survey.

In just three years, they grossed about $3.3bn before their companies went bust, having wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value and nearly 100,000 jobs.”

Everyone is blaming the CEOs but there may be more blame to go around as James Carroll writes in the Boston Globe indicting our “Culture of Self-Deception”

‘’MY DEAR FELLOW citizens,'’ Vaclav Havel said in his inaugural address as Czech president, ‘’for 40 years on this day you heard from my predecessors the same thing in a number of variations: how our country is flourishing, how many millions of tons of steel we produce, how happy we all are, how we trust our government, and what prospects lie ahead of us. I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, should lie to you.'’

“That was 1990. It seems a quaint time, back when public lying was defined as one of the key differences between the Soviet empire and America. Public lying is now revealed as endemic to what capitalism has become in the United States, with Havel’s summary of the Stalinist deceptions reading like a standard CEO report to shareholders. This discovery of a basic dishonesty in the heart of ‘’free enterprise'’ can shock us into moral maturity.”

WHY FLORIDA MATTERS

I told writer Dan Kennedy, who is taking a break from the Boston Phoenix to write a book, writing about a clip from our film, COUNTING ON DEMOCRACY, and posted at www.Globalvision.org. He took a look and commented on why Florida still matters on his website, at dankennedy.net:

“Veteran progressive media activist Danny Schechter and his New York-based production company, have released an hour-long documentary, http://www.globalvision.org/program/fla/fla.html Counting on Democracy, about the fiasco that was the 2000 presidential post-election in Florida. Danny was kind enough to interview me after I wrote on the systematic disenfranchisement of African-American voters in Florida in the Boston Phoenix.

“I have not yet had a chance to see the entire film, so no review today. Instead, just a few thoughts on why Florida remains relevant.

“It’s easy to caricature those who think Al Gore was robbed as hopeless obsessives concerned with trivia at a time when our country is at war. But this was never about Gore — in any case, I doubt he would have handled 9/11 much differently from George W. Bush. Rather, it’s about us, and whether our votes count or not.

See dankennedy.net for more.

BREAKING NEWS ON BRAVO

As for my humble efforts on the media stage, I was pleased last night to see that BRAVO has picked up the series BREAKING NEWS, a weekly dramatic series about conflicts in the news business centered around an imaginary 24 hour cable station called I-24.

It was very well done, especially because it focused on the real issues and conflicts journalists face in a media industry driven by profitability. In the episode I saw, an investigative reporter looking into sweatshops discovered that his parent company, owner of the station, also operated sweatshops. The owner tries to get the story killed by making slimey suggestions, but the News Director threatens to quit if they yank it. When other employees hear about his decision, one speaks of a “conga line” of others walking out the door, even if the anchor makes noises of conscience. In the end, the piece airs and the show goes on.

Originally produced for Turner Broadcasting, the series BREAKING NEWS was killed and not aired when it should have been. Perhaps someone got queasy, or the issues were too close to home. Instead, New Line, a Turner and now AOLTimeWarner affiliate distributed it and BRAVO bought it.

I had a special interest in all this, because of the issues, and because, to my surprise and delight, I had been hired by the series as a consultant on media issues. It was not particularly taxing work and I wish I could have had more input, but it did lead to some fascinating conversations with writers who really wanted to test the authenticity of their scenarios and capture the flavor of TV newsrooms. They seemed to welcome my advice and were all disappointed when the only series to take on the ethical dilemmas in TV was deep-sixed before it was even aired.

I was doubly disappointed because I lost some well spent income and access to a Hollywood scene I had never had before. If you get a chance, check out the series BREAKING NEWS and tell me what you thing. There is more about it on the Bravo website.

INTO THE BUZZSAW

For real life stories of ethical conflicts in the business, pick up Kristina Borjesson’s collection “INTO THE BUZZSAW” from Prometheus Books. It featured first person accounts by journalists, Greg Palast of the BBC among them, which indict the media and show in graphic detail how censorship and self-censorship operates in the mediabiz. “Most journalists work behind the scenes and want to keep it that way,” writes Borjesson.” They don’t ever want to be the story; they only want to tell it. More important, there are plenty of big and little dirty secrets journalism’s powers that be don’t want publicized. Particularly by those who work for them and know their secrets.” Must reading. Gore Vidal contributes the foreword.

SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL

The debate over threats of foreign ownership in England continues to rouse controversy. Variety reports: “A parliamentary panel chaired by ex-film producer David Puttnam has come out against a U.K. plan to allow U.S. companies to buy British TV stations. But the advice is likely to be ignored by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor government.” The Guardian confirms this today, reporting “The government has dismissed Lord Puttnam’s recommendations without even listening to them”…

The Independent notes: “The News of the World has admitted its articles claiming Roger Cookhad faked his documentary programs were false.”

A BLAST FROM THE PAST

And we close today by wondering what else may be false in the picture of the world we are getting. I leave you with this troubling quotation:

“We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know about and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” — Washington Post owner Katharine Graham speaking at CIA’s Langley, Virginia headquarters in 1988, as reported in Regardie’s Magazine, January, 1990. Quoted from David McGowan, Derailing Democracy, (Common Courage Press, 2000), p.109.”

Need I add: we here at mediachannel.org are proud NOT to share this view. We even welcome yours. Write your news dissector at: dissector@mediachannel.org