|
How Does AP Cover Israeli Politics?
Barry Rubin
How does AP cover Israeli politics? Generally speaking, much better than it covers issues relating to the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian politics. One reason for this is that the
reporters tend to be people living in Israel who don't have more knowledge and less political preconceptions, at least when covering these stories. Perhaps, too, there is less pressure from editors to push the approve line on
the conflict. On September 17, AP issues, "Next steps after Kadima primary election," a factual summary of the situation. (AP "factual summaries" on conflict issues are often remarkably biased.) This one is
reasonable:
"Israel's ruling Kadima Party held a primary election Wednesday to pick a successor to the party leader, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But the winner will not automatically succeed Olmert. A look at the
process:
The winner of the primary election must get 40 percent or more of the vote to become party leader. If not, the party holds runoff between two top vote-getters the following week.
Once the party has a
leader, Olmert formally submits his resignation to ceremonial President Shimon Peres. The Cabinet resigns with him.
After consulting with party leaders, Peres picks a member of parliament, likely the Kadima leader, to
form new coalition government.
The prime minister-designate has 42 days to form a new coalition and bring it to parliament for approval.
If no new government is formed, a general election is held within 90 days.
The process of forming a government begins all over again.
Olmert remains in office as caretaker prime minister until the new government is approved by parliament."
Fair enough, no gratuitous swipes.
The more substantive article is from September 17, 2008 by Steve Weizman, "Israeli party rivals face off in power bid."
"Israel's popular foreign minister faced off against a grizzled former military chief
on Wednesday in the leadership race for the ruling Kadima party , an election that could determine the country's next prime minister.
"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who hopes to become Israel's first female prime
minister in more than three decades, held a strong lead over Shaul Mofaz, a former chief of staff and defense minister, in opinion polls ahead of the vote....
"Kadima convened the primary to choose a successor to
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is being forced from office by a corruption scandal. Whoever wins has a good chance of becoming the next prime minister, overseeing peace talks with the Palestinians and dealing with Iran's
nuclear ambitions.
"Livni, a former lawyer and one-time agent in the Mossad spy agency, is a soft-spoken diplomat who has played a central role in peace talks with the Palestinians and prefers negotiation to
confrontation.
"Mofaz takes a tougher line, demanding the Palestinians fulfill a series of conditions before a final deal can be hammered out. He also is more willing to order military action in times of
crisis."
It is a bit funny that it is worth noting when one of a country's leaders actually asks that the other side in a negotiation fulfill its commitments!" But it is rare enough that this idea is heard in
an AP dispatch.
"Male rivals have called Livni "weak" and "that woman." And there is talk about ultra-Orthodox Jewish lawmakers being uncomfortable with the idea of a female leader....Mofaz,
meanwhile, hopes to become the first Israeli of Sephardic, or Middle Eastern, descent to lead the country. Sephardic Jews have long complained of discrimination at the hands of Ashkenazi, or European Jews.
Ok, fair
enough remarks on Israeli society though I would bet that Israel's two "firsts" don't stir many voters to oppose them solely on that basis.
It is refreshing to see a paragraph stating:
"The
country's next leader will inherit a peace process begun by Olmert last year aimed at reaching a final agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas by January 2009. Despite months of talks, both sides have acknowledged
they are unlikely to reach that target."
That's two good points: Israel pressed for the peace process and it isn't going to work.
Immediately after came Dion Nissenbaum, September 18, "Livni is apparent
winner in tight Israeli race," for the McClatchy newspaper chain which includes the Philadelphia Inquirer. It calls Livni "a popular, diplomacy-first advocate" and Mofaz, "a more uncompromising former
defense minister." Actually, the funny thing is that it is precisely Mofaz who wants to compromise--that is, both sides to make concessions, another insight into how the media views Israel.
The article continues,
"By choosing Livni over Mofaz, Kadima voters implicitly endorsed the foreign minister's diplomacy-before-warfare approach to tackling Israel's biggest concerns: making peace with the Palestinians and neutering Iran's
nuclear program."
This reminds me of the Atlantic magazine article whose cover headline tells voters--hint, hint, nudge, nudge--that Republican nominee Senator John McCain wants war. Livni won mainly because she is
seen as an honest new face while Mofaz is amazingly uncharismatic and has committed huge political mistakes in the past, notably his indecisiveness about joining Kadima in the first place, his silly blustering about how his
victory was inevitable. (That, too, is a sign about media coverage: Israeli politics can only be considered to deal with "peace process" and international issues, domestic considerations apparently don't exist.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
|
