Measuring Balance at "Nightline": Divergent Views Need Not Apply

[JohnLocke]

Measuring Balance at "Nightline": Divergent Views Need Not Apply
by Tamar Sternthal (CAMERA)

“Nightline and ABC News devote a significant amount of time to both Israeli and Palestinian issues and we consider our record even on the whole,” wrote Kerry Smith Marash, ABC’s VP for editorial quality, in her Nov. 13 letter to CAMERA. If the Dec. 2 “Nightline” focusing on “Israeli issues”– the 27 pilots objecting to Israel’s targeted killings followed by a piece on the “demographic bomb”– was meant to balance the tendentious Oct. 9 broadcast featuring the suicide bomber as victim and criticizing Israel’s security barrier, it didn't come anywhere close.
(...)
Hilary Brown did not interview even one pilot who disagreed with the dissenters. In this completely one-sided segment, viewers heard from Yiftah Spector, Yoel Pieterburg, Alon, Assaf, Ron Ben Ishai, Avner Ra’annan, and Jonathan–all of whom shared one view–that Israeli actions in which innocent civilians are injured are “illegal and immoral and are the direct result of an extended occupation that is corrupting the Israeli society as a whole.”
And what is brought to “balance” these more than half dozen interviewees presenting the identical point of view? In three sentences, Hilary Brown paraphrases responses from Prime Minister Sharon, the chief of staff, and the air force commander...
(...)
Surely, had she wanted, Brown could have found intelligent, articulate pilots who believe that Israel’s actions are just and legal. Danny Grossman, for example, an English-speaking retired lieutenant-colonel in the Air Force, spoke out against the pilots’ letter Oct. 5 in the Jerusalem Post, stating:
"...Virtually ever aspect of the letter was tainted with an ever-so-slight misrepresentation geared to reduce a nuanced discussion of legitimate ethical issues to a sound bite."
"Spector will be the first to tell you that IAF has the highest standard of moral sensitivity of any air force in the world. Even when the target is a monster out to murder defenseless civilians while hiding behind the shield of innocent mothers and children, we still anguish over the risks and consequences of taking him out..."
(...)
A differing point of view might have exposed the falsity of the 27 pilots’ argument that it is “illegal” for Israel to attack militants hiding among civilians. In the words of Assaf (which aired twice during the segment), “This is definitely illegal. Killing civilians is illegal.” In fact, according to the Geneva Convention, parties in a conflict cannot use a civilian area to render themselves off-limits to attack:
"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations." (Emphasis added. Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, Article 51)

Read the rest here
---------------------------
Note to all: Instead of attacking CAMERA as biased, try refuting this point by point.
---------------------------

[bluesoul]

1. The refuseniks

are heroes! Something some will never understand. For those brave Israelis I say :toast:

[Jim Sagle]

3. Now THAT'S a point by point refutation!

;-)

[mmm]

5. the piece is so poorly written that any attempt

at point by point refutation is pretty much a total waste of time.
It would certainly be nice to see some coming together
on this issue once in a while.

[JohnLocke]

6. In other words, you can't refute it.

[mmm]

4. we could use some refuseniks in this country

They are brave and I toast them, as well.

[number6]

10. refuseniks

heroes! :yourock: :toast:

[mmm]

2. The article is poorly written, nonetheless,

I am heartened to learn "Koppel editorializes that American policies are a result of Israel’s “skillful job” of playing off American fears." I rarely watch TV, but if true, it is promising.
I am sure that side of the coin rarely turns up in US media.

(Please ask the author of the article to re-submit after
re-write.)

[The Magistrate]

7. The Point Of Legality, Mr. Locke, Is A Sound One

It is a mistake to imagine all killing of civilians is a crime of war, though it is a simple trap into which to tumble, as there is certainly no doubt that the intention of modern law on the subject is to minimize such killing.

It is for precisely that reason that military forces are forbidden to take up their positions among the civilian population, and that civilian casualties resulting from operations against forces so deployed are not considered crimes of war: to do otherwise would have the perverse incentive of rewarding violation of the law, by granting an immunity from attack to the initial offender, and stigmatizing as criminal the opponent who attacked him in his illegal positions.

In attacking military positions where harm to civilians is possible, the attacker is required to balance the direct military benefit of the attack against the harm likely to civilians, and it is here that some difficulties may arise. The standard is necessarily subjective, and open to a good deal of dis-agreement. The less ruthless souls among us may well hew to the view that no direct military benefit can justify any degree of harm to non-combatants; while the more ruthless souls among us may hew to the view even a minor direct military benefit may justify extensive harm to non-combatants. Dis-agreement is also possible over what degree of direct military benefit actually is gained by a specific attack, and this question will arise particularly in war against guerrilla organizations: there can be little argument over the military value of neutralizing a howitzer battery or anti-aircraft position, but much can arise over what is gained by, say, killing a particular local guerilla chieftain. No international court has yet ruled on such considerations, so there really is no settled body of law on the subject: there are statutes, but no judges have yet ruled on what their letter means, applied to the facts of particular cases. This leaves room for a great deal of opinion, and none can say with authority which opinion is correct, while any can assert with all force possible the correctness of their own view, and the falseness of their opponent's.

These uncertainties become particularly pronounced in applying the laws of war to guerilla conflicts. Partisan resistance movements are allowed by the laws of war, but it is a necessity of operations for such forces that they mingle among the civilian populace, a thing that is, by the letter of the law, illegal in itself. A military formation's headquarters is a seperate establishment, always legitimate target for attack; the corresponding guerrilla establishment is likely to be a few un-remarked fellows in the back of a coffee-shop, or riding in a van in traffic, yet they are in all functional ways equivalent to the brass-hats gathered in a bunker of the conventional opponent.

One point that is seperate from the legalities ought not to be overlooked in this matter, and that is the corrosive moral effect of occupation duties on the soldiery put to them. This is a well established fact of history: such duties do corrode the spirit of those who carry them out. Military occupation is a thing that can be done more or less badly, but cannot be done well. It invariably brutalizes the soldiery that is put to it, and reduces its fighting moral and competence at conventional warfare. It is the worst possible long-term policy for any state, particularly one that values, and to a great degree depends, on its military arm for survival.

[JohnLocke]

8. An interesting perspective, Judge.

Paticularly the part where you say that "there can be little argument over the military value of neutralizing a howitzer battery or anti-aircraft position, but much can arise over what is gained by, say, killing a particular local guerilla chieftain." I believe that in some cases, the latter's elimination might be better than the former's.

[The Magistrate]

9. Well, Sir

Take as a starting point for consideration the killing of various Hamas leaders over the last several years. You will be aware that killing them is a policy that does not trouble me, as a general proposition. And yet, does Hamas run out of leaders? Clearly, it does not: like shark's teeth, there is a new one pushed to the fore whenever one is broken off. It is difficult to see any great disruption these killings cause to the operaton of the organization: it seems to be a rather loosely constructed thing, without much by way of a head that can be killed to make the body die. A sponge rather than a snake, as it were. War, of course, must be conducted by striking blows against the enemy, and there can be no doubt Hamas is a combatant force. Nor can there be any doubt that self-preservation must take up a great portion of its officers' time and energies, that, if they were not aware any slip could mean death on the instant, without warning, they would be able to devote to planning and execution of things more constructive, from their point of view. The effect is a sort of suppressive fire, that hampers operations, in the same way that bombardment of a position, though really unlikely to destroy it, confines its occupants to shelters and prevents their effectively firing on some other point, so long as the shellfire continues. To me, all these things taken together lead to the conclusion such attacks are proper, though not to the extent of, say, leveling a whole block to get one fellow, but it is not difficult for me to see the point of an argument that says, basically, since it accomplishes so little, what is it worth?