Khalil Hamra

Palestinian journalists hold posters of kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston during a protest calling for his release in front of the parliament building in Gaza City, Tuesday, March 20, 2007. Johnston was kidnapped last week in Gaza City and no group has yet claimed responsibility.

The photo above accompanies a depressing piece about the internal strife in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah, now that Arafat-era “strongman” Mohammed Dahlan has been put in the driver’s seat to oversee security. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Even more depressing, there is nothing new to report on the Alan Johnston story.

I was glad to see that ETP’s Glynnis MacNicol picked up on the story in a long post. Too bad she got her facts wrong about “Gilead” (much, much more frequently known as Gilad) Shalit. If you’re going to go “deep in the weeds,” *** you gotta know what you’re talking about.

It was not the kidnapping of Shalit that “ostensibly launched last summer’s Israeli attack on Lebanon.” [!]

The kidnapping of Shalit (and murder of two other soldiers), on top of continual Hamas-sponsored rockets lobbed into Israel, was what sparked an Israeli offensive into Gaza (which is to the south of Israel) in June 2006.

Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah, the terrorist organization dug in on its northern border, in Lebanon, started in mid-July 2006, three weeks later, after Hezbollah kidnapped two other Israeli soldiers (and killed three ) in a cross-border raid that violated Israel’s sovereignty. That was the casus belli of that conflict, which today was given its offical name: the Second Lebanon War. (I don’t much like the sound of that. Whenever they start counting wars, knowing it’s only one of a series—of indefinite length—it makes me nervous.)

————

*** I read that expression on Matt Yglesias’s blog today—twice in once post—and googled it, because I’d never heard it before. What I dug up was really interesting—with more than enough meat for another post. But who knows when I’ll ever get to that, so here’s the short version.

Googling “deep in the weeds” led me to Language Log (which I haven’t visited in waaaaaay too long)

Do six uses of a phrase in two years [May 2004 to May 2006 --ed.] count as “quintessential”? Well, I’ve observed before that a word or phrase may only need to be repeated a couple of times in order to seem characteristic of a writer or speaker, if the use in context is striking enough. In this case, five of the six TPM uses of “deep in the weeds” are used to introduce a post, as part of a ritualized warning to the reader that the content will involve a level of detail that some may find excessive.

In comparison, the phrase “deep in the weeds” has never been used on Language Log, on Language Hat, on the Volokh Conspiracy, on Crooked Timber, etc., although these blogs are more often deep in (what some might consider) the intellectual weeds than not

TPM, where Josh Marshall has used it a lot, is where Yglesias (who used to write under the TPM Cafe banner) must have picked it up.

We’re all Professor Donald Foster wannabes now. (He unmasked Joe Klein as “Anonymous,” the author of Primary Colors, the highly unflattering insiderish 1996 roman a clef about the Clintons. Foster has also gotten some wrong.)

update: welcome, ETP readers! Enjoy Cathy Seipp’s piece below. And then do go here to read Matt Welch’s most excellent farewell to her.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to read her Hollywoodland columns in Salon.

This is Cathy Seipp (”Standing Room Only at the Mad-at-Me Section“, from 1997!):

Anyway, I wish American media types would follow the example of British media types and not take being trashed in print so personally. I was touched and extremely satisfied a few years ago when Tina Brown, who was then departing Vanity Fair for the New Yorker, graciously introduced her replacement, Graydon Carter, to the Vanity Fair staff — in spite of the fact that Carter had regularly insulted Brown in the pages of the old Spy.

Perhaps I inherited a Commonwealth version of this attitude from my deeply sarcastic Canadian family. At least, that’s what occurred to me recently when a woman at a party approached to say, “You wouldn’t write the way you do if you weren’t Canadian.” Since she was Canadian, I’ll assume she meant this as a compliment. But it did bring back a rather vivid childhood memory.

There I was, age 6, with my entire expatriate Canadian clan (aunts, uncles, parents, sister, cousins, grandparents — all of whom were now living in the same Southern California subdivision). We were cozily sitting in Grandma’s TV room watching a documentary about brain damage. Suddenly, my aunt, age 11, shifted on the sofa. “Oh, look, Cathy,” she announced coolly. “That boy can tie his shoes with only half a brain. Interesting, because you still can’t tie your shoes with a whole brain.”

Even as I heard my mouth shriek the outraged, tearful, “MUMMY! Did you hear what she SAID??? Make her say SORRY!!!” I also felt another thought silently filling my mind: “Wow, that was a good one.” My aunt and I have a siblinglike closeness built on years of insults, and we wouldn’t have it any other way.

So if I insult you in print, please remember, it’s only because I care.

You never insulted me in print, Cathy, but you gave me great insight, gutsy honesty, and deep pleasure as a reader. Thank you.

—————-*** Back when Salon was a great. Today I can’t even link to it without forcing you to watch an ad, so I won’t link. The excellent critic Charles Taylor was my other Salon fave. One of the most depressing stories I have ever read was in this interview with Taylor, where he describes how Salon changed.

Charles Taylor was dismissed from his duties as a Salon critic in February, 2005. At the time, Salon editor Joan Walsh chalked up the decision to simple economics: their publication had just 22 editorial employees and could not justify employing three film critics. This was disappointing news for regular Salon subscribers and a harbinger of declining standards. Although Taylor’s colleagues Stephanie Zacharek and Andrew O’Hehir continue to offer insightful cultural analysis and film criticism, a casual perusal of Salon post-Taylor reveals feature articles that are elaborately disguised press releases pandering to the studios. Gossip, box office reports and hype don’t address whether a film has merit as art or entertainment. The latter was Taylor’s specialty; he called it like he saw it, often employing the sorts of provocative turns of phrase that spark arguments in parking lots.

The World Zionist Organization jumps into the viral war of words between Ahmadinejad and the Jews.

Click here for details.

This one tells the story (in the background, which is also where the eye falls first upon seeing this carefully composed photograph) of once-upon-a-time best friends Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat.

And it seems to have helped Mahmoud, because in a recent poll, Mahmoud (Fatah) Abbas was beating his new best friend Ismail (Hamas) Haniyeh by 9%, according to the AP.

The poll, conducted by the Ramallah-based independent polling company Neareast Consulting, was conducted by telephone among 759 Palestinians and quoted a margin of error of 3.56 percentage points.

“People have probably felt that (Abbas) did more to bring this unity government together than others,” said Jamil Rabah, who heads the polling firm.

Rabah said most Palestinians saw the unity deal as primarily a tool to put internal Palestinian affairs in order, with only 4 percent of respondents saying that making peace with Israel was a priority. The majority saw that ending chaos and infighting between Palestinians as the top priority of the new government.

This is drilling down into obscure details for most of my readers, but those of you who have been following along may remember that Hamas rose to power—and belligerently stated at every opportunity—on the platform of resistance (see this post for more details).

Here’s what one Hamas official told Spiegel magazine in the June 2006:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Now Hamas is no longer only a terrorist group or a resistance group, but also a governing party. Do you think — given all the chaos since the election success — that Hamas has carried out this transformation successfully?

Abu Marzook: Our task was not to change. The Palestinian people live under occupation, so we are still a resistance movement. The people elected us because they did not get the feeling that all the negotiations by Fatah had brought them closer to having their own state. We respect their choice, but we did not seek to be in the government.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But now that Hamas is in the government: Should it not handle its conflicts with negotiations rather than attacks?

Abu Marzook: Of course. On the other hand, we are not a government like any other independent state. We are a government under occupation. And the task of such a government is to carry out resistance, in every possible way. I think that every single Palestinian should resist, and should keep it up until there is an independent Palestinian state. [e.a.]

There is every reason to believe that the Palestinian people are more interested in the improvement in the conditions of their daily lives than in heroic resistance against Israel—except when they’re indoctrinated to believe that the only cause of all of their problems is the dirty Jews next door (along with the dirty Jews who rule the world in order to make everyone’s life miserable).

Let’s wait and see what happens. It’s all we can do. (Except for Dr. Rice, that is—and who knows what the hell her game is. It is almost certain that she herself has no clue.)

Rice is set to leave for the Middle East on Friday and will see both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as Abbas to try and get both sides to move closer to reviving stagnant peace initiatives.

 

She conceded the new Palestinian unity government, which was sworn in last weekend, “has provided something of a challenge.” But Rice said it was important for the United States to be stay engaged.

 

She reiterated a new U.S. policy that the administration would have contacts with members of the new government committed to recognizing Israel, agreeing to past Israeli-Palestinian accords and who renounced violence.

And how will this be determined? Do they pass muster if they’re “cosmopolitan” (see this post, which links to a piece in the NYT that refers to “cosmopolitan figures with whom the West is used to dealing.)
 

(updated with a link, and clarified)

The fate of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, kidnapped in Gaza nine days ago, is still unknown. Tension is beginning to mount, though, judging by the headlines on Google News:

Hunt continues for BBC reporter
BBC News, UK - 2 hours ago
Efforts are continuing to locate the BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston, who disappeared more than a week ago and is presumed to have been kidnapped. …
PJS to Launch 2 Hours Strike Protesting Johnston’s Abduction WAFA - Palestine News Agency
Britain Working Feverishly To Locate BBC Reporter In Gaza All Headline News
Government ‘using every channel’ to free newsman Scotsman
BBC News - Swissinfo
all 124 news articles »

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Palestinian kidnappers link BBC correspondent …
DEBKA file, Israel - 3 hours ago
Ten days ago, BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was seized by armed men in Gaza (March

For what it’s worth—and I think it would be a mistake to discount it entirely; see this post, where I noted that the NYT and Debka overlap somewhat in their reporting—Debka’s report is grimly sensational [e.a.]:

Our counter-terror sources disclose that Montaz Durmush, leader of the Army of Islam (Al Qaeda-Palestine), which is holding both hostages, is using the British journalist as a tool to drive up the price demanded of Israel for Shalit’s freedom. …

A team of 20 British agents, most of them from the MI6 secret service, is working in Gaza to make contact with the abductors, or just to obtain a sign of life from Johnston – so far without success. It is beginning to dawn on the group that the BBC reporter’s seizure was not just another short-lived kidnapping of a Westerner like the ones plaguing Gaza and the West Bank in recent months, but a drawn-out affair with no knowing how it will turn out. …

British and Israeli intelligence circles believe both hostages are caught up in factional rivalries in Gaza over who will dominate the Palestinian unity government. Neither Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas nor prime minister Ismail Haniyeh was in any position to deliver on their promises to work for Shalit’s early release.

As I said: no news is grim news.

With a tip of my hat to Neil Postman, whose work I once imbibed, I must note nevertheless that his prediction has not exactly come to pass: We don’t show signs of being even close to death, but we sure are amusing ourselves in front of the TV.

There is the briefest of brief mentions (in “Arts, Briefly“) in today’s New York Times of a fascinating fact:

Who’s Watching?

The typical American home received 104 television channels last year, The Associated Press reported, citing Nielsen Media Research. In 2000, the number was 61, and in 1990 it was 33. But Nielsen reported that last year viewers watched only 15 percent of the available channels for any appreciable length of time.

At the Neilsen site, there’s a very helpful chart, which breaks down that number even further (and which puts in perspective Rachel Haimowitz’s HuffPo/ETP post—which is what I’ve been saying on this blog for more than a year, dude: Infotainment Rules. Also: this is not news):

Types of Primetime Programs on Broadcast Networks

Source: Nielsen Media Research NOTE: Based on new fall line-ups of regularly scheduled programs, 25 minutes or longer. CW and MNT included as of ’06. Primetime hours: Mon.-Sat. 8-11pm & Sun. 7-11pm

The news is what’s on TV: dramas and comedies.

Now you see why “the news” has become infotainment: ‘cause people want to be entertained. 

And, really, what’s wrong with that? They still go to work every day and put food on their families and innovate like crazy and make gazillions of dollars and help the needy and spread the gospel, etc., etc.

They’re busy people. If you want to get their attention, you’ve got to grab it.