Truce Announcement Delayed:

The Palestinians have once again said they are delaying their announcement of a "truce" (actually, a "hudna," or "temporary ceasefire"). Yesterday, it was Sharon's fault for using a helicopter in an attempt to stop an imminent terror attack. And today? Is it Sharon's fault, again?

It never was Sharon's fault. The LAT creates a narrative from the events they see--and they make Sharon out as the bad guy, whenever possible. They invent motives, intent, and reasons for things when they really don't know what is going on. They could guess the reason the ceasefire announcement would be delayed is because that's just how things normally are over in Palestine, or they could attach a reason to it, namely Palestinian frustration with Sharon. This is bad journalism. But the LAT is not in the business of reporting news, it's in the business of constructing an anti-Israel narrative.

No matter what happens, Sharon will be blamed for it. You can count on that much.  ¶ 3:02 PM

Sharon takes a Pro-Active Stance...

...against the BBC (via LGF). Good for him. It is nothing short of anti-Semitic to falsely accuse Israelis of using nerve gas. Nazis once gassed Jews. Now Jews are accused of gassing Palestinians. Get it? Jews are Nazis. That's the obvious subtext of this accusation. It's clearly anti-Semitic. It demonizes Jews and minimizes the Holocaust (after all, how bad was the Holocaust if Jews are the new Nazis and they're doing it too?).

The Israelis were very smart to elect Sharon. This sort of thing is unprecendented in a democracy, but Sharon is still clearly in the right. Even the LAT isn't as bad as the BBC.  ¶ 11:36 AM

Prediction Number Three:

If the ceasefire actually goes through, and Israel accepts it, the Times will report that Abbas is complying with the road map even if Hamas continues to build bombs and plans new attacks (whether it actually carries them out is irrelevant; just planning them is a violation of the road map) and Abbas does not use his security forces to stop them.

Remember, the road map calls for "Palestinians [to] declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." Hamas is merely calling for a temporary ceasefire, which means even if it is not conducting attacks during the ceasefire, even if it is just planning them, the PA has a responsibility to dismantle it. If Hamas is building new bombs and rockets during the ceasefire period, the PA has a responsibility under the road map to dismantle them as a group. But don't expect the LAT to point this out any time soon.

Remember also that Israel has said it would like to provide specific information about Hamas activities to Abbas, so long as he will actually act on it--so Abbas will not be able to claim ignorance.

Update: (6/28 10:55am) The LAT published this today:

Many Israelis maintain that there can be no calm until the security forces strip the militants of their guns, lock their leaders in jail and put a stop to all incitement.

Leery Israeli officials fear that the cease-fire could merely give Hamas time to strengthen for an eventual revolt. They have asked the United States to monitor the Palestinians to make sure Hamas and the other factions are broken down and disarmed. Israel is expected to press Rice for guarantees that the militants will be disarmed.

"In and by itself, this does not substitute for the need to really fight terrorism," said Raanan Gissin, an advisor to Sharon. "There's no avoiding the need to dismantle the terror infrastructure, to take Hamas and outlaw it."

The LAT won't say this is all required by the road map (even though it very clearly is). Of course, this isn't good enough to satisfy the prediction, because it requires this to actually happen, not just be hypothetical. But I think my chances are pretty good.

Update: (6/29 12:01am) Ouch. Looks like I might not win this one after all:

The emerging truce has received a lukewarm response from Israel and the United States, who say that armed groups should be dismantled as required by the road map. Palestinian officials fear a crackdown could trigger a civil war and have opted instead for persuasion.

It was a badly-written prediction, I can now see, because journalists are not supposed to judge whether or not someone is complying with something--they are merely supposed to offer facts and quotes. It is not up to the LAT to tell its readers that the Palestinians are not complying with the road map--it is up to the Israeli government to make that one of its talking points. Of course, the Times never seems to have any trouble figuring out who is responsible for inflaming the situation, restarting the cycle of violence, or undermining the peace process, so this wasn't a completely terrible guess.

Update: (7/7/03) I've just decided to count this one as a loss until I can prove it's true, I don't want to leave it hanging.  ¶ 6:56 PM

My Prediction Was: The LAT will report that the Palestinians were getting close to a ceasefire until the Israeli helicopter attack disrupted things.

Oddly enough, the terrorist groups actually have appeared to have accepted the ceasefire anyway, but the prediction still holds.

Here's what the LAT published:

With Palestinian resistance groups reportedly on the verge of calling a cease-fire, Israeli soldiers steered their helicopters over a stretch of road in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday and fired a pair of rockets into the traffic. A taxi driver and a 22-year-old woman died in Israel's latest attack on Hamas, Palestinian sources said.

Palestinians called the airstrike a botched attempt to assassinate Hamas radical Mohammed Siam, who lost his leg but survived — one of more than a dozen Palestinian casualties in the attack on the militant group.

An Israeli security source said the target was a Hamas cell driving toward farmlands on the edge of the town of Khan Yunis with a stash of mortar shells meant for an attack on a nearby Israeli settlement.

The afternoon strike further muddied preparations for a Palestinian truce. Some Palestinian radicals said a cease-fire agreement had been reached and could be announced within hours; others said there was no such accord.

Look at that first sentence: the Israelis flew their helicopters over a road, fired into traffic, and killed two civilians. The bloodthirsty Israelis flew their helicopters over a civilian area and fired a pair of rockets* into the street, just to sabotage the peace plans. Nope, no bias there. The LAT is not even willing to assume that Israel was, indeed, targeting a terrorist in that traffic and was not just firing blindly into the street. Their "objective" description of the event is that Israelis flew over a civilian area and shot at it, killing people. The Times leaves it up to the Palestinians to mention Siam.

The afternoon strike further muddied preparations for a Palestinian truce. Some Palestinian radicals said a cease-fire agreement had been reached and could be announced within hours; others said there was no such accord

But the LAT assumes it knows exactly why the Palestinian militant groups have suddenly gone from being sure of a truce to being confused about it: of course, this is all Sharon's fault for the airstrike. Palestinian militant groups have been acting this way all along--they say they are not sure of a truce, some Palestinian announces there is a truce, then another one denies it, etc. They have been doing this kind of thing a lot for the past few weeks (the PA will announce there is a ceasefire soon, then take it back). And yet, the LAT says the reason the peace deal appears to be flimsy is not because deals with Hamas pretty much always appear to be flimsy--no, it's all Sharon's fault!

Note also that although the article does say Hamas sources vowed revenge, none of the people quoted say anything about this strike as having anything to do with why the status of the negotiations was not as coherent as it could be. The Palestinians aren't saying this Israeli strike undermined their ability to reach a ceasefire, only the LAT is.

The explosions occurred just as a flurry of reports were circulating of an immediate call to peace from militants. There was apparently no connection, although Wednesday's attack was the latest in a string of Israeli attempts at "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants as mediators are struggling to broker a truce.

Despite a desperate push to implement the U.S.-backed peace "road map," the blood of suicide bombings, army raids and gun battles has continued to stain these lands.

Maybe the LAT could ask the question: if Hamas is intent on agreeing to a ceasefire, why is it trying so hard to carry out attacks against Israel right now? Why are the Israeli airstrikes put in the context of peace negotiations, instead of the context of "Hamas is trying to carry out attacks against Israel and Israel is trying to stop them?" Like I wrote earlier, to Israel-haters, Israel is expected to accept Palestinian terror attacks during this time of "negotiation" between Hamas and the PA--and any defensive action by Israel is automatically categorized as a provocative attack on the peace process.

And just who is "desperate[ly]" trying to implement the road map? Certainly not the Palestinians. No important Palestinian has endorsed the part of the road map calling for "Palestinians [to] declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." Hamas is merely calling for a temporary ceasefire, which means even if it is not conducting attacks during the ceasefire, even if it is just planning them, the PA has a responsibility to dismantle it. If Hamas is building new bombs and rockets during the ceasefire period, the PA has a responsibility under the road map to dismantle them as a group. But don't expect the LAT to point this out any time soon.

My score is now 2/2.

* Note that although "rocket" and "missile" have very similar meanings, the military generally uses the word "rocket" to mean an unguided/non-precision weapon and a "missile" is a precision weapon. The Army does not have "anti-aircraft rockets," it has "anti-aircraft missiles." Using the term "rocket" instead of "missile" makes it sound as if it was an unguided weapon that was fired randomly into traffic. At least for attack helicopters, "rockets" are unguided and "missiles" (such as the Hellfire, which is what was probably used) are guided. Of course, anyone who doesn't understand the distinction between the two words would not be affected, and anyone who did understand it would just be annoyed because they would know Israel uses guided missiles. This is just another example of a newspaper writer covering military affairs of which s/he is ignorant. This seems pretty quibbling, so I've moved it to the end. It is important, though, whether Israel used precision-guided weapons or whether it fired inaccurate rockets into a crowded civilian area.  ¶ 5:03 PM

What the Heck Happened Today?

These are the headlines from AP wire stories according to the Yahoo News page:

Israel Militants OK Three-Month Reprieve	AP - Jun 25 4:33 PM
Militants Deny Truce on Israel Attacks	AP - Jun 25 4:34 PM
Hamas Says Israeli Truce Deal Not Final	AP - Jun 25 3:54 PM
Airstrike, Threats Undercut Mideast Truce	AP - [approx. 3:30pm]
Hamas, Islamic Jihad Agree to Truce	AP - Jun 25 11:42 AM
Hamas Set to OK Halt on Israeli Attacks	AP - Jun 25 10:38 AM
Hamas Agrees to Halt Attacks on Israelis	AP - Jun 25 10:35 AM

So what, exactly, happened?

A Fatah terrorist announced the Hamas/PIJ had agreed to a ceasefire.

Hamas denies this.

A Hamas team attempts to fire rockets at Israel. Israeli helicopters blow them up. If those rockets had been launched, that would not have been bad for the peace process, but the Israeli response threatens to undermine it. Of course, only Israel can undermine the peace process.

A terror attack was averted today:

Security forces averted a suicide bombing in Petah Tikva on Wednesday morning. After receiving a tip, they nabbed the suicide bomber and his helper in Kafr Kasim, and found bomb hidden in a bag. Its detonation left a one-meter-deep crater in the road.

Officials estimated that the bomb contained 12 to 15 kilograms of explosives and shrapnel.
The two terrorists are affiliated with Fatah's Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade in Nablus.

Note that this was not even a targeted assassination, it was a purely defensive attack against a group of men in the process of carrying out an attack on civilians.

I am not feeling very confident about this prediction, because it takes a very negative view of the Times' reporting. But hey, nobody ever got famous overestimating the media (OTOH, it's usually a bad kind of fame when you underestimate the media and... nevermind). But here it is anyway:

PUBLIC PREDICTION NUMBER TWO*:

The LAT will report that the Palestinians were getting close to a ceasefire until the Israeli helicopter attack disrupted things.

I think it would be best to keep my predictions short, so that's it. I've already shown above that this is an absurd thing to assert, but we will just have to see if the LAT goes ahead and does it anyway.

*not to be confused with "The Second Public Prediction" which I was not able to get a clear true/false answer because I put it on the premise that the LAT would report an obscure quote. It was a poorly-constructed prediction (but it did say that if the Times did not cover the quote, it would not count, so I have not counted it).

Update (6/27 5:10pm): I've evaluated the result of this prediction in this post.  ¶ 5:09 PM

The Hamas Talking Points Memo: There's this from the LA Times:

However, the group said Sunday evening that it was still weighing a possible cease-fire, which the Palestinian Authority has been trying to negotiate. One of Hamas' key demands is an end to the campaign of what it calls assassinations.

This is what appeared in an AFP story:

One of Hamas' main demands is that Israel halt its controversial policy of assassinations.

These are obviously the Hamas talking points. The LAT and AFP both got the memo. Of course, there is no mention that it is understood by Israel that no targeted killings would take place during a ceasefire. That is not a point of contention. Hamas and the PA are arguing about other things.

What Hamas really wants is for the assassinations to end before it agrees to a ceasefire; in other words, Hamas keeps bombing, and no one--not the PA or the IDF--tries to stop them. In fairy-tale-land, this is supposed to be a temporary time period during which Hamas works out a ceasefire agreement with the PA, and then stops bombing. Israel's assassination strikes supposedly undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to bring Hamas to agree to a ceasefire. In fairy-tale-land, this time period of bus bombings and Israeli restraint is an integral part of the peace process, and will lead to cooperation, trust, and happiness. If only Sharon stays his hand, so the theory goes.

I don't remember reading in the Road Map anywhere about this time period. I don't see any of the proponents of the "Hamas Bombs Will Bring Peace" school of thought explaining how long this time period is supposed to last, or why Hamas would ever want to quit when the conditions are so favorable? Is Israel supposed to passively accept suicide bombings for a week? A month? How long? When would the people from the "Hamas Bombs Will Bring Peace" school of thought give up on attempts by the PA/Hamas to agree to a ceasefire? How long are they willing to wait while Hamas continues to carry out bombings?

I don't see the LAT mentioning that the Hamas charter itself calls for the destruction of Israel, Hamas spokesmen have said recently that "the word cease-fire is not in our dictionary" and "Cease-fire means surrender to occupation." When they say they are open to a ceasefire, those quotes get printed. When they say they are against it, their words are quickly forgotten. No, what the LAT wants to dwell on is Hamas' demand to end the assassinations. But let's get to the real point: aside from that "key [demand]," what else does Hamas want? According to the NYT:

But Hamas has always rejected peace talks with Israel, and said its demands for a cease-fire included a halt to Israel's targeted killings, the release of Palestinian prisoners and a troop withdrawal from Gaza.

If all Hamas wanted was a ceasefire, it could have had one. What it wants is a get-out-of-jail free card for all of its captured terrorists, so they can go back to work. What are Hamas' other demands? Why isn't Hamas more public about the exact conditions under which it would accept a ceasefire? Of course, the answer is that it is stalling and does not want a cease fire.

The LAT would rather highlight Hamas' reasonable demand for an end to assassinations during a ceasefire--a demand Israel has basically agreed to--instead of the unreasonable demands that are hindering the negotiation process. When she writes that that is the key demand, Laura King makes the situation out as if Hamas wants a ceasefire but Sharon is bent on assassinating them no matter what, even at the cost of peace. That's twisted to the point of dishonesty. The article in question follows rules 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, among others. This is not news, it's doctrinaire propaganda.

Update (6/25 4:30pm):

Some of you might not have believed me when I said

What Hamas really wants is for the assassinations to end before it agrees to a ceasefire; in other words, Hamas keeps bombing, and no one--not the PA or the IDF--tries to stop them. In fairy-tale-land, this is supposed to be a temporary time period during which Hamas works out a ceasefire agreement with the PA, and then stops bombing. Israel's assassination strikes supposedly undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to bring Hamas to agree to a ceasefire. In fairy-tale-land, this time period of bus bombings and Israeli restraint is an integral part of the peace process, and will lead to cooperation, trust, and happiness. If only Sharon stays his hand, so the theory goes.

But this is exactly what a PA man said today:

"We still haven't received any American guarantees or replies from Israel, which is continuing to avoid holding another round of security meetings with the Palestinian Authority," said Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a senior adviser to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat.

"In any case, efforts to reach a cease-fire are facing huge problems because of the ongoing Israeli policy of assassinations and [military] escalation," he said, adding that the PA is awaiting assurances from the US that Israel would stop its military escalation.

In other words, the Palestinians want Israel to stop the campaign of assassinations before they stop carrying out suicide bombings--which they tried to do again today.  ¶ 11:25 PM

Not Much to Say: It's hard to make specific predictions when so many things are happening at once. (it was very, very easy with the bus bombing because it took place almost in a vacuum, with just one other event nearby).

Once the "cycle" of violence has started, the media stop caring about who started it, so they've finally stopped blaming Sharon (for the most part). One of the easiest things to predict is how reporters will blame Israel for things.

The bias now is to portray Palestinian peace initiatives in the best possible light. A temporary ceasefire with Hamas just means Hamas has time to organize, recruit, and build new bombs. Hamas will never agree to a ceasefire if it means the Palestinian Authority will actually crack down on them. Hamas will violate any ceasefire it agrees to. And of course, it will not be reported that a ceasefire with Hamas would violate Abbas' responsibilities under the road map.

And, as much as I hate to admit it, the LAT's coverage has not been so bad over the past few days. This especially stands out in my mind as noteworthy:

On Tuesday, at close to midnight on a lonely stretch of toll road that runs inside Israel proper but skirts the West Bank, a gunman fired from close range at a car carrying the Leibowitz family home from a bar mitzvah in Jerusalem. Noam, 7, riding in the back seat, was fatally hit; her 3-year-old sister, Shira, was wounded.
...
This was an example of the kind of low-level violence that many Israelis fear will persist during the quest for a peace accord, even if Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is able to negotiate a temporary truce with militant groups such as Hamas.

I hope this is a permanent trend towards better coverage of this issue.

I will continue to follow their coverage and I might make predictions in the future, but if things get better I won't be posting so often.  ¶ 3:53 PM

Militant Bias: Take a look at this:

The decision sparked protests by militant settlers at several sites. Some of the demonstrators blocked Israeli army vehicles with stones and their own bodies.

Let me get this straight: Palestinians who just throw rocks are never "militants," but Jews who do the same are. If blocking Israeli military vehicles makes someone a "militant," wouldn't that make Rachel Corrie a "militant?" Why didn't the LAT describe her in that manner?

There is a glaringly clear double-standard at play here: If a Zionist does something--no matter what--it's one step worse than what Arabs do. This is not objective reporting.  ¶ 1:39 PM

Arrrrrrgh! Good grief, the newest article from Solomon Moore is one of the worst I've seen yet.

Of course, Rule #3 comes in, as this is breezily mentioned without qualification: "The Palestinian Authority has accepted the [road map]." (the actual words are "peace plan," but two sentences up in the article is this "the Middle East peace plan known as the "road map,"" it is clear the "road map" is the peace plan being referred to). The Palestinian Authority has not accepted the Road Map! It's symbolic head Abu Mazen has said he will not take action against Hamas, and its real head Yasser Arafat is launching attacks against Israel to undermine even attempts to achieve a ceasefire.

Rule #7 makes an appearance here ("No matter what the situation is, it could be improved if Israel would just make more concessions"), as does Rule #4:

The latest wave of violence — and the most recent flurry of diplomatic activity — came just as U.S. envoy John Wolf arrived here Sunday. He will meet with Palestinian and Israeli authorities to discuss ways to revive the ailing peace process.

His job may become more difficult, however, if Sharon follows through on a plan to present a list of 14 additional stipulations to the peace plan to the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, today. Palestinian and other Arab leaders have repeatedly said they would brook no amendments to the plan.

If Sharon wants to cooperate with the majority of the road map, but has some specific reservations, and wants to discuss those before accepting it, that's going to be bad for the peace process. If Abbas unilaterally declares he's not going to follow the single most important bullet point in the entire road map, that's not even worth mentioning. The Israelis cannot comply with the road map in the LAT's twisted universe, and the Palestinians are incapable of not complying. No matter what. It's really rich, that the Palestinians/other Arabs would complain about "amendments" to the plan when Abbas has said flat-out on numerous occasions (after the Aqaba summit, before the bus bombing/after the bus bombing) that he will not take action against Hamas, which is his primary responsibility.

Here is another example of the issue of the Palestinian Authority's responsibilities being sidestepped:

JERUSALEM — In a bid to get peace efforts back on track after a week of bloodshed, Israeli military officials offered Sunday to withdraw from the West Bank town of Bethlehem and parts of the Gaza Strip in return for assurances that the Palestinian Authority would curb militant groups like Hamas.

But Hamas rejected an Egyptian delegation's push for a six-month cease-fire.

The Israelis wanted "assurances that the Palestinian Authority would curb... Hamas," not assurances that Hamas would agree to a ceasefire. Whether or not Hamas agrees to stop is not the issue; the issue is whether or not the Palestinian Authority will crack down on Hamas. If Israel is asking for the Palestinian Authority to do something, why does Solomon Moore look to Hamas for the reaction, instead of to the Palestinian Authority? Why isn't the Palestinian Authority responsible for a response to an Israeli peace offer?  ¶ 1:31 AM

Read the Road map Online: I've been talking about what the road map contains without actually quoting it or linking to it. I've found it online (via HonestReporting), and here is the full actual text of the parties' responsibilities (GOI = Government of Israel):

Security

• Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
• Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
• GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan.
• Relying on existing mechanisms and on-the-ground resources, Quartet representatives begin informal monitoring and consult with the parties on establishment of a formal monitoring mechanism and its implementation.
• Implementation, as previously agreed, of U.S. rebuilding, training and resumed security cooperation plan in collaboration with outside oversight board (U.S.–Egypt–Jordan). Quartet support for efforts to achieve a lasting, comprehensive cease-fire.
  • All Palestinian security organizations are consolidated into three services reporting to an empowered Interior Minister.
  • Restructured/retrained Palestinian security forces and IDF counterparts progressively resume security cooperation and other undertakings in implementation of the Tenet work plan, including regular senior-level meetings, with the participation of U.S. security officials.
• Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.
• All donors providing budgetary support for the Palestinians channel these funds through the Palestinian Ministry of Finance's Single Treasury Account.
• As comprehensive security performance moves forward, IDF withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed prior to September 28, 2000. Palestinian security forces redeploy to areas vacated by IDF.

As HonestReporting states:

Fact: Abbas has suggested only a hudna (temporary ceasefire) with the terror groups, a frail approach Israel has consistently rejected. The road map itself demands at this stage much more than a hudna — calling on the P.A. to "arrest, disrupt, and restrain" terror leaders.

So Abbas's attempts to coordinate a "cease fire" with Hamas would not even be enough if they succeeded--but they were never designed to succeed, just to buy time for Hamas, so it could build up its forces under the protection of a cease fire. Then the terrorism could continue. Abbas and Arafat know they are only liked by the Palestinians because of their ability to deliver terrorism.

Abbas said flat out that he would not use his forces to stop Hamas from carrying out attacks (a direct violation of the road map requirement to "arrest, disrupt, and restrain" terrorists). He openly declared that he was violating the most important provision of the road map (so much for having "accept[ed] it immediately" as The Times had in its June 5 article "Sharon, Abbas Agree to Take Initial Steps Toward Peace"). Yet his declaration was treated as the words of a peacemaker. Now Aded Rabbo's words will get the same treatment (if they are mentioned at all--he is not a very important guy), even though he was calling for the same violation of the road map.  ¶ 1:37 PM

MY SECOND PUBLIC PREDICTION:

According to the Ha'aretz news ticker, Reuters is reporting this:

PA`s Abed Rabbo: PA can`t meet its responsibilities without a U.S. guarantee that Israel will stop military escalation

How will The Times cover this?

My prediction is that The Times will report it credulously without pointing out that Fatah has been carrying out shooting attacks all along to undermine the peace process, and Abed Rabbo 1) is a part of the PA, which is closely linked to Fatah (Rabbo works for Arafat, the head of Fatah) and 2) he has not offered any condemnation for those attacks. In other words, they will make him out as an advocate of peace, while Sharon and Hamas will be proponents of war (will there be moral equivalence between Sharon and Hamas? Count on it! I don't get a point unless this happens) when in fact Rabbo is an advocate of carrying out attacks to undermine the peace process.

Of course, this prediction is only valid if The Times actually covers Rabbo's comments--if they ignore the comments (or just print an AP wire report on them) I can't be right or wrong, so no points will be gained or lost.

Update (4:35PM Saturday): This has more information on Rabbo. Although he was a founding member of the DFLP (a group within the PLO), it appears he has criticized terror attacks and really is trying to bring about peace. Still, what he is demanding is that Israel stop taking action against Hamas so the Palestinian Authority can do so--except PM Abbas has said explicitly that he will not do this. It is one thing to demand that Israel back off so the PLO can crack down on Hamas; it is another to demand that Israel back off so the PLO can be capable of cracking down on Hamas--whether or not it actually intends to! The question is whether the Times will note the difference.

Since The Times has not yet posted a new article, I still have the ability to change my prediction and I will change it to this (which will hopefully clarify things):

The Times will not note the difference between Rabbo's calling for the Palestinian Authority's being able to crack down on Hamas and an actual call from Rabbo for the PA to crack down on Hamas; it will treat them as if they are the same thing (becuase, as per Rule #3, the it is always assumed the Palestinians have the best possible motives). They will make him out as an advocate of peace, while Sharon and Hamas will be proponents of war (will there be moral equivalence between Sharon and Hamas? Count on it! I don't get a point unless this happens) .

Update Again (Monday, 1AM): I guess this speech was not relevant enough to make it into the news pages, so I can't be right or wrong about this prediction.  ¶ 9:40 PM

The AP is still pushing this lie

(Keep in mind although this is published on the LAT web site it is an AP story)

In a first such strike, Israel tried this week to kill Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a Hamas co-founder and spokesman. Rantisi escaped a missile strike with minor injuries, but in response, a Hamas bomber blew himself up on a Jerusalem bus a day later, killing 17 people.

But if the AP is still pushing this blatant untruth (that the violence occurs in "cycles"), the LAT can't be far behind (how long until an LAT staff writer covers this story?)

I will once again link to this INN article:

The Hamas spokesman, while warning that the organization intends to take revenge for yesterday’s IDF helicopter attack on Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, admitted that his organization is incapable of organizing an attack on such short notice and called the timing ‘a fortuitous coincidence.’

HAMAS has admitted their bombing was not in retaliation for the Rantisi strike, that the bombing would have happened even if Sharon had not carried out the attack. Why does the AP persist in repeating the lie that there is anything cyclical about the violence? HAMAS gave the go-ahead to launch these attacks when it declared it would not participate in a cease-fire. When HAMAS said this, and Israel's intelligence services found out that attacks were underway, Sharon ordered a counter-attack. Just because Sharon's blow landed first does not mean that he is the aggressor, if he knew attacks were incoming.

If the AP is still repeating this garbage, I can assume the Los Angeles Times will as well. I don't think I can really call this a second prediction, however, because this is the same subject as the first, even though there is a cold, hard fact to back up my position now (when I made the prediction, I was going on instinct and a basic knowledge of how Palestinian terrorism works).  ¶ 4:00 PM

Yukking it up with Arafat

"The only person who can tell me to resign is President Arafat, and he did not ask me to resign," Abbas replied, whereupon Arafat interrupted him jovially. "I did not ask you to resign!" Arafat exclaimed.

Jovially? A "Quick News Search" on LEXIS-NEXIS over the past two years returns just 105 examples of this word being used (that's an average of once a week that it appears in just one out of all the major newspapers). And almost all of these are in non-news sections or stories not about hard news (for example: "I haven't had time to decorate," he said jovially or Former President Nelson Mandela smiled jovially and pretended to be surprised to find schoolchildren singing a happy birthday song on his doorstep Wednesday morning).

It is improper for journalists to add words like "jovially" to their description of what someone has said. Journalists are supposed to use the neutral word "said" and only that word. Controversial people should not have such labels attached to their actions, let alone their actual speech! Other newspapers around the world all seem to get this, why not the LAT? Because Laura King isn't a journalist, she's a Valentist, writing love letters to Arafat.  ¶ 3:39 PM

It's too late for me to predict that the LAT would uncritically welcome Arafat's "condemnation" of terrorism without mentioning that Arafat's own group was carrying out attacks against Israel to undermine the peace process--joint attacks, with terrorists from HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades participating, which was a demonstration of Arafat's solidarity with these terror groups. It's a good thing I wrote all those rules in advance (see Rule #3). Of course, I am not claiming a point for this, I have to submit predictions in advance to get those.  ¶ 11:13 PM

MY FIRST PUBLIC PREDICTION: Note that this was originally posted on the IRlog at 12:00AM this morning.

Now I will use my psychic powers to predict the future: When the Times reports on the suicide bombing in Israel that took place Wednesday, in what context will it put the bombing? You can take the test in multiple-choice format:

A) HAMAS rejected a ceasefire and walked away from talks with Abbas before the Israeli strike on Rantisi, and then carried out a bomb attack
B) HAMAS carried out the bombing after Abbas said he would not use force to stop HAMAS from carrying out attacks
C) According to the Israeli government, it has arrested 10 would-be suicide bombers between the time of the Aqaba Summit and the time of the bus bombing, so there is no special significance to the timing of this attack. This attack is just an attack that happened to get through, unlike some of the previous attempts.
D) It's all Sharon's fault for trying to kill Rantisi

Any guesses?

Update: The new article is out, it can be found here (registration required)

Hamas, which had vowed to take revenge for the attempt on Abdulaziz Rantisi's life, did not immediately make an official claim of responsibility for the bus attack.
...
The bus bombing overshadowed what had been an emerging debate among Israelis over the attempt to assassinate Rantisi, which wounded him and killed two others.

Surprisingly, it actually does mention the Israeli government's claim ("Israeli police said that since the summit, 10 attempted Palestinian attacks had been foiled before the bus blast") but doesn't explain why this might be relevant (that it would prove the timing of this attack had no significance, that the attack on Rantisi had not sparked an increase in violence).

It does mention that (1) HAMAS walked away from talks with Abbas... (well, it says HAMAS "snubbed" him) but does not mention that (2) HAMAS left saying they would carry out more attacks... (3) until the destruction of Israel... (4) and all this happened before the Rantisi strike, and no metion that (5) Abbas said he would not crack down on Hamas. This is typical of the Times, the most biased major newspaper in America when it comes to reporting on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

While it is good that both (A) and (C) were mentioned, they were not given as the context that provoked this attack, they were just mentioned later in the article (and their significance was never explained). Of course, the "right" answer was (D). In the future, just for the sake of process, I will directly indicate which answer I think is correct ahead of time (even though it was bleedingly obvious this time). My score is thus 1/1 (1 correct prediction out of 1 total predictions).

Further Update: Charles Johnson links to (me! and to) this INN article in which Hamas admits the bus bombing was not linked to the Rantisi strike:

The Hamas spokesman, while warning that the organization intends to take revenge for yesterday’s IDF helicopter attack on Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, admitted that his organization is incapable of organizing an attack on such short notice and called the timing ‘a fortuitous coincidence.’

Of course, (C) was the best answer, followed by (A) and then (B). But either the reporters for the Times are either completely ignorant of how suicide bombings are organized (and they've had several years to watch the patterns develop) or are willfully adding their spin to the news articles.  ¶ 4:55 PM

LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTER’S HANDBOOK:
National Desk, Palestine Dateline

Welcome to the Los Angeles Times National Desk! Your assignment is the Palestine dateline. You will find yourself right at home here, if you can follow these simple rules:

RULE ONE: The word “terrorist” should be applied to people and groups who carry out deliberate non-military attacks against civilians, in places such as America, Europe, the Philippines, and most everywhere else. But not in Israel. There can, however, be “terrorist attacks,” such as the bombing of a civilian area. These attacks are very tragic. But no matter how many terrorist attacks a group carries out, they can never be a “terrorist” group. A better term would be “militia.” No matter how many terrorist attacks a person plans or carries out, he can never be a "terrorist." A better term would be "activist."

RULE TWO: Never mention failed attempts to carry out a suicide bombing. The fact that Israel says it has arrested ten would-be suicide bombers since the Aqaba summit (INN June 11, 2003) is not relevant to discussions of Wednesday’s bombing. Every successful suicide bombing must be examined in its proper political context and unsuccessful bombings are not a part of that context (see Rule Six). The fact that Palestinian militant groups have been attempting to carry out these attacks since before the strike on Rantisi took place is irrelevant, that is the reason this particular bombing took place. It was in response to Israeli aggression, and would otherwise not have been carried out. And nobody can prove otherwise.

RULE THREE: The Palestinian leadership’s failure to meet their responsibilities under the road map must never be mentioned. The Palestinian leadership is acting in good faith; they are trying their best in the face of very difficult conditions. So they deserve praise whenever they actually do anything right. And if they never actually meet a single condition of the road map, they at least deserve praise for saying they will meet the conditions of the road map. If they make conflicting statements, it would be best to only report the ones in which they are saying they will comply; anything else might confuse the reader. Consider these excerpts:

The Palestinian prime minister, also known as Abu Mazen, has been trying to reach a cease-fire with the various armed Palestinian groups but has been sharply rebuffed in the wake of last week's summit in Aqaba, Jordan.
(LAT June 9, 2003)

The militant Islamic group Hamas said Friday that it was breaking off cease-fire talks with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, a rebuff that appeared designed to undermine the new leader days after he agreed to implement a newly drawn "road map" to peace.

In making the announcement, Hamas leader Abdulaziz Rantisi decried what he called Abbas' "speech of capitulation" at a summit in the Jordanian port of Aqaba this week with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Bush. In that speech, Abbas also committed Palestinians to eschewing violence.
(LAT June 7, 2003)

While at one point referring to "our brothers in Hamas," the Palestinian prime minister pledged to make "our utmost effort to end terror." He insisted, however, that he would pursue a course of negotiations with the militants rather than launching a crackdown, as Israel wants him to do. (LAT June 10, 2003)

There is not a single mention in these articles that Abu Mazen is expected under the road map to stop terror attacks, with military force if necessary (which has been the responsibility of the PLO since the Oslo Accords were signed). Notice the skillful crafting of the first sentence of the third paragraph: it would sound so awkward if it had been reversed:

While at one point pledging to make "our utmost effort to end terror" the Palestinian prime minister referred to "our brothers in Hamas."

Notice also how it is reported that Mazen “committed Palestinians to eschewing violence,” when in fact what he said was that he would not use violence to stop Palestinian militant groups from operating. Allowing militant groups with parallel political agendas to operate freely is basically the same thing as “eschewing violence,” because the same Gandhi-like political principles are in play. If President Bush were to declare that he would not allow law enforcement to chase after abortion clinic bombers, we would not describe that as a “commitment to eschewing violence,” but that is because the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a special case (and that is why we have these special rules). Mazen must always be praised as a peacemaker—anything else could undermine him and make peace more difficult to achieve.

RULE FOUR: Israeli compliance with its responsibilities of the road map must not be mentioned. Only nitpicking of Israeli failures is allowed. If Israel is complying completely with the letter of the law, write about how the Israeli government is acting in a “provocative” manner which “threatens” to “undermine” the peace process. This brings us to the fourth law:

RULE FIVE: The unhindered operation of militant groups must be accepted by Israel as a fundamental part of the peace process, but any attacks on these groups by Israel are a violation of the process. Anything Israel does to defend itself beyond passively waiting for the next attack is “provocative.” This is true even though the militant groups are explicitly against the peace process—because, if you will remember, “[t]he unhindered operation of militant groups must be accepted… as a fundamental part of the peace process.” Nothing Hamas or Abu Mazen does can ever be considered “provocative.”

RULE SIX: No matter what goes wrong, it was Ariel Sharon’s fault. This is what was reported on the front page of the Times on June 8, 2003:

The incident, not unusual by pre-peace summit standards, set off a storm of criticism that risks unraveling the "road map" before it has even begun to be enacted.

Palestinian politicians condemned the incident as an "assassination," and it quickly became a prime example to Palestinians of Israel's lack of good faith.
(LAT June 8, 2003)

On June 7, 2003, just a day before, the very same reporter, Alissa Rubin, had written this (which was also a front-page story):

The militant Islamic group Hamas said Friday that it was breaking off cease-fire talks with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, a rebuff that appeared designed to undermine the new leader days after he agreed to implement a newly drawn "road map" to peace.

In making the announcement, Hamas leader Abdulaziz Rantisi decried what he called Abbas' "speech of capitulation"…
(LAT June 7, 2003)

Hamas had already said they were breaking off the ceasefire talks a day before Sharon took action against them, and said it was because Hamas was against the peace process. In fact, that’s probably why Sharon took action against them. Nevertheless, Sharon is to blame for the failure of the ceasefire talks, because Sharon is always to blame. This is the easiest rule to remember. Once you have this down, the articles basically write themselves.

RULE SEVEN: No matter what the situation is, it could be improved if Israel would just make more concessions. There is never any doubt that this might not be correct in all situations.

RULE EIGHT: Don’t mention that Hamas is completely opposed to the peace process and to Israel’s existence. Just suggest that Hamas wants a better deal from Sharon before it will halt the violence. After all, that’s technically true. This rule also applies to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat/Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs/Abu Mazen. It is not your place as a reporter to question whether a Palestinian is telling the truth when he says he wants to make peace with Israel, even if his actions or past words contradict what he is saying.

Do not ever speculate on the meaning of the word "Palestine" when used by Palestinian groups. It does not mean the entirety of the land covered by the current Israeli state. After all, the Palestinians do not claim the Golan Heights. It would only confuse the reader to point out that Arafat has told the Palsetinians for years that "Palestine" encompasses everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is another instance when it is best to defer to what Arafat says he believes, rather than what he says.

RULE NINE: The subject of political education of Palestinians is not an uncontroversial one. Certain readers can be upset by pictures or descriptions of Palestinian children learning about their history at public rallies. These can give the wrong idea about the Palestinians, so it is best not to show this, and it could be considered racist to dwell on this subject. What goes on in Palestinian schools and on state-run television is between the Palestinian children and the democratically-elected Palestinian leadership; it would be a breach of their privacy (and their rights as minors) to describe this. It is best not to mention it at all, but if you must, be as tactful as possible.

---

Articles Cited:

King, L. (2003, June 9). Sharon Vows to Stay Course Despite Raids. The Los Angeles Times, p. 1. Retrieved from the LEXIS-NEXIS database June 9, 2003 from (temporary URL).

Rubin, A. (2003, June 8). 'Map' of Uncharted Territory. The Los Angeles Times, p. 1. Retrieved from the LEXIS-NEXIS database June 9, 2003 from (temporary URL).

Rubin, A. (2003, June 7). Hamas Rejects Abbas' Moves. The Los Angeles Times, p. 1. Retrieved from the LEXIS-NEXIS database June 9, 2003 from (temporary URL).

Wright, R. (2003, June 5). Sharon, Abbas Agree to Take Initial Steps Toward Peace. The Los Angeles Times, p. 1. Retrieved from the LEXIS-NEXIS database June 9, 2003 from (temporary URL).

Moore, S. (2003, June 10). Israeli Army Pulls Up Settler Outposts' Stakes. The Los Angeles Times, p. 12. Retrieved from the LEXIS-NEXIS database June 11, 2003 from (temporary URL).

Israel National News. (2003, June 11, 2003). Abu Mazen Doing Nothing About It. Retrieved June 11, 2003 on the World Wide Web:
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=44838

Link to specific Rules: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  ¶ 4:30 PM

Welcome to my new weblog, the "LAT-Early" blog. This is an exercise in psychic powers predicting the Los Angeles Times next day's news coverage of events in Israel/Palestine, through an objective, quantifiable study of media bias. This is more ambitious than most projects setting out to analyze media bias because it does not merely count word usage (such as "terrorist" or "activist") but looks at what the Times says--and fails to say. There are really two projects here: one is an attempt to understand media bias in an objective manner, and the other is to apply that in a provocative manner (mocking the Times by predicting how it will spin the news).

I promise I will not edit the content of my predictions after I have posted them (the portion of the post containing the analysis of the prediction's success can be edited by me whenever I feel like, as with this post, and the "handbook"). If I am ever wrong (and I hope I will be!) I will admit it up front. Without the trust of my readers, this project would be worthless. The first real post on this blog will be the sarcastic "reporter's handbook" I put together containing the "rules" Los Angeles Times reporters mostly follow when they report on the Middle East--rules that by definition violate objective standards of journalism. Note that I will only be looking at news coverage, not "news analysis," not "commentary," not editorials, not letters to the editor (all of which show up on a LEXIS-NEXIS search) but only of news articles from the news section.

This project was started when an LAT reporter told me he thought the Times was probably biased in favor of Israel. I made a short prediction about how the Times would report general coverage of the road map, and at the end of a week I analyzed how right I was. That report formed the basis of what would become the "Reporters' Handbook." I gave him a 2-page report, he said he would show his editors, and I have not yet heard back from him (as you can see, I'm not waiting very patiently, considering I posted this page online).

I also want to note that I am not specifically upset with the Los Angeles Times. Most other news sources report Israel/Palestine coverage with the exact same bias (as I have not regularly read the Times in the past, I came up with this list by reading other papers' coverage). For my purposes, it is best to analze just one paper, but of course the "Handbook" applies to pretty much every major newspaper in this country--and in the world.

Send any comments, criticism, harassment, compromising photos of LAT reporters, etc. to lat_early@hotmail.com  ¶ 4:09 PM