;.cHaberman NYT Oct. 3, Media bias, rigging rules of debate
;.l1,6,60,66,1,0,10,75,192,2,15,20,25,127,10,0,
;.l2,15,75,192,2,20,25,127,15,0,
;.l3,20,75,192,2,25,127,20,0,
;.l4,25,75,192,2,127,25,0,
mb1014
Media bias 10/14
Clyde Haberman, NYT Oct. 3

"Since the deal with the PLO first became known 5 weeks ago(writing for publication Oct. 3), rightists have marched againstit, calling Mr. rabin a traitor and a liar.  Some them have evokedthe Holcaust [Cf. Peres, Kol Israel News 1/14 A.M., 'the train hasleft' -- rather a slip of the tongue] and warned that ascomparable disaaster awaits Jews again.  They hae damned theGveornment as illegitite.  Citing Mr. Rabin's reliance on IsraeliArab parties to win parliamentary approval of the agreement 10days ago [qv date; this will fix the '5 weeks'] they have accusedhim of lacking 'a Jewish majority' a catch phrase that strikesMODERATE Likudniks as MORALLY RACIST and policitally DUMB.'
[MY CAPS.]         

COMMENT:  Artfully crafted; that's what he's paid for.
The reader is clearly steered on what to conclude.  We all supportmoderation and want to align ourselves with moderats.  We alloppose racism.  And [as Mailer said in the 60s] we all fear beingthought dumb (or queer).
BUT:  Rabin's lack of a Jewish majority is a simple fact, as isthe ideologic commitment of the Arab parties that supported Rabin(as distinct from Arab MKs in Labor in Likud) to the PLO.  And thedefinition of Israel as a Jewish state is also a fact.(to Arafatit is a 'secular state', so in conceeding Israel's right to exist,with his customary "nothing crossed counts" duplicity, he may havein mind existence as a minority in an Arab-dominated state -- hemeans somethign quite different than what non-religious Israelismean when they favor Israel's being secular, but Jewish).

SO;  Haberman is here trying to re-define rules of debate over theAgreement, to Labor's advantage.  The political legitimacy of theKnesset vote is open to debate; if we stipulate that the notion ofa 'Jewish majority' is irrelevant to questions of poliitcallegitimacy in Israel, the conclusion of that debate is more likelyto support Labor.

"What the right has conspicoulsly failed to do is provide aPLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE for the majority of Israelis who areexhausted by conflict and are ready to give this plan a chance, nomatter how many doubts they may have."
COMMENT: The presuposition here is that to be an ALTERNATIVE, anyother scenario must be as simplistic as the Agreement.  TheAgreement points to an unequivocal future:  call it a trial periodof autonomy (if you disregard the fact that the process of trialautonomy creates facts that strongly work against itsreversability, and hence is not a trial but a gamble); or admitthat it points to a Palestinian state that is assumed to co-existpeacefully with Israel, and to an end to terrorism -- both ofwhich are implausible.
The only real alternative, apart from Transfer, is a continuationof the status quo, in the hope that the pressures of modernitywill lead to the assimilation of the next Palestinian generation. If this is not acknoleged as an 'alternative' then the question isrigged.

"Mr. Netanyahu...has come across as Dr. No...he strikes 7l
SOME in his own camp as having been taken hostage by 7l
EXTREMISTS and MESSIANICS, by DOCTRINAIRE SMALL-PARTY FIGURES."
COMMENT:  A clear message to Netanyahu, given the standing of thethe NYT and of Haberman:  be a pro, don't be a rube; join theteam.
("Doctor No" is the brutal villain in an Ian Fleming melodrama.)
'Some' is of course the magic taxi-driver gambit.
	Hypothesise an anonymous source to express your own view.  

(attributing this position to "internal critics like Mr. Sharon"):
"Likud should stop FLAILING ITS ARMS at a DONE DEAL and focus itsfire on SPECIFIC PERCEIVED DANGERS in the accord.  It must appealmore to the broad center where most Israelis reside, THEY SAY..."
COMMENT:  Technique:  Artful.  A subtler version of the phantomtaxi-driver; it is not Sharon to whom Haberman attributes his ownopionion, but anonymous 'internal critics like Mr. Sharon'.
'Done deal' is one of those just-folks down-to-earth Americanisms,like 'dumb', used by by Haberman above, that are recall the readerto plebian childish contexs where such epithets close debate.
'Specific dangers' is a buzz phrase from the yuppie workplace;ideology is out, specific criticism are in.
The MESSAGE here is: it's uncool to get heated up (flailing yourarms like a windmill) over ideology; and unmanly not to admit whenyou're beaten ("done deal"), don't be an oddball, join the crowdor team ("broad center") and confine your objections to minorammendments.

Demonstration:  given at "tens of thousands"; Habad estimates400,000.
 

"The Likudniks...[who were not at the demonstrations -- thoHaberman here ignores the fact that most conservative people, bothworking-class and middle-class, simply do not go to demonstrationsregardless of whether or not they agree; this became quite clearto us in the anti-Vietnam movement] cannot accept that THIS formerarmy chief, WHO CAPTURED THE TERRITORIES IN 1967, is guilty oftreason.  And they want nothing to do with the handful for firebreathing visonaries threatening to GUN DOWN the first soldier whotries to evict them from their West Bank ENCLAVES.
	
COMMENT:  This is crude.  Rabin's role in 1967 is not takenseriously in Israel; he suffered a breakdown the week before, andappears a bit dazed in the photo of his entering Jerusalem.  [Cf.HErzog's history.
'this former army chief' -- an Americanism, invoking the 'I'm justa humble soldier' gambit.  Oliver North used the phrase,effectively.  ("This Lieutenant Colonoel").
"Gun down" rings false to anyone who lives in Israel; there is avery strong taboo against attacking soldiers even physically; andcertainly against shooting 'em.