Matt Lee of the Associated Press was one of several reporters pressing the Palestinian Arab line at the State Department press briefing, July 16, 2014.
Photo Credit: StateDept.Gov
Photo Credit: StateDept.Gov
The Daily press briefing given by one of the State Department spokespeople was an even nastier version of itself when it came to a discussion about the conflict between Gaza and Israel on Wednesday, July 16.
Although Said Arikat, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the Palestinian Arab Al Quds newspaper, typically goads whoever is leading the briefing in an attempt to force the U.S. into denunciations of Israel, today there was a virtual pile-on by various members of the press.
It started with the ever dogged, although as often as not critical of Arab tactics as of Israel, Matt Lee of the Associated Press. Lee peppered spokesperson Jen Psaki with questions about a Human Rights Watch report which charged Israel with violating international law with some of its airstrikes on Gaza. Lee then linked the HRW report to the day’s incident on a beach in Gaza in which four Gazan teenagers were killed by what Hamas claimed was a hit by the Israeli Navy.
Put aside the fact – which never came up – that the Israeli Navy immediately stated it was not firing in that area at the time the beach was struck, Lee completed his “testimony” and ended, finally, with a question: “Do you endorse or do you echo the call of Human Rights Watch here for Israel to stop these attacks?”
Psaki didn’t immediately respond in a coherent way, and Lee followed up by asking her if she believed Israel was targeting either civilians or civilian structures.
The spokesperson then launched into her pre-packaged statement that the secretary of state has called on both parties to de-escalate the hostilities, and explaining that civilian deaths, whether of children or otherwise, is of course always a great concern of the United States.
Lee, not satisfied with the non-responsive answer, resumed peppering Psaki with demands that she answer whether or not the state department agreed with the Human Rights Watch report that Israel was “killing civilians in violation of the laws of war.”
When Psaki refused to agree, Lee moved on to another part of the HRW report, which stated that “Palestinian armed groups should end indiscriminate rocket attacks launched towards Israeli population centers.” Psaki, recognizing something the secretary has said, said “we agree with that statement.” Then Lee pounced, declaring that “So you agree with Human Rights Watch when they say that the Palestinians should stop their shelling, but you don’t agree with them when they say that Israel should; is that correct?”
It went even further downhill from there, with Lee continuing to badger Psaki along the same lines. Finally, Said Arikat jumped in with, “Shouldn’t Israel be held to the same standards in this case?” Psaki dismissed him by saying she had already answered the question. She then went to the next journalist who, unfortunately for Psaki, continued with the same line of questioning.
This journalist again discussed the deaths of the four Arabs on the beach, and concluded with the accusation, “How is an Israeli airstrike on what can only be described as a civilian target in full view of international journalists be acceptable to the U.S. Government?”
Psaki again discussed the U.S. being very concerned always by the death of civilians, but refused to allow herself to be drawn into a discussion of what exactly had happened on the beach, and resorted to the U.S. focus on de-escalating the violence.
Again, this third reporter attempted to draw out Psaki to have her condemn Israeli actions: “Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that civilians who, for whatever reason, happen to be living in Gaza would not become more hardened in their view of the Israeli Government, of the Israeli people, when their own children can’t ostensibly go play in the surf, and instead, the next time they see their children they’re on funeral biers?”
At this point Psaki reminded the journalists that a ceasefire had been declared and while Israel respected it, rockets continued raining down on Israel.
Then still another journalist jumped in with her version of defending Gaza and criticizing Israel. This one agreed that while Hamas may be at fault, it is the Gazan civilian population that is suffering and that is Israel’s fault, and given that Israel used to brag about how precise their intelligence is, how could Israel not know civilians were on the beach.
Once again it was Arikat’s turn to attack Israeli in a whole new way: “Are you counseling Israel not to bomb hospitals?” He then became more specific: “Are you telling the Israelis not to bomb hospitals like Wafa Hospital and the Shifa Hospital?”
When Psaki did not take the bait, Arikat then launched into his standard talking points, about Gaza’s high unemployment rate and the inability of Gazans to move about freely and wrapping up with asking why can’t a ceasefire include the commitment to open up the entry points between Israel and Gaza.
The questions continued along these lines with some of the same reporters jumping back in and asking about how to achieve movement for the Arabs stuck in Gaza.
Then once again Arikat engages with Psaki, asking her why she says Israel has the right to defend itself but that Hamas does not. Matt Lee jumps back in, advocating for the Hamas conditions for a ceasefire, asking why some of those conditions were not reasonable.
It really is quite extraordinary that at least four different reporters advocate the position of Hamas to the state department spokesperson. In a press briefing that lasted less than an hour, journalists’ concern about Gaza took up more than half of that time.
Reporters should not be advocating for one side or another, but rather should be attempting to determine what are the facts in given situations, or what the position is of the U.S. government. But given that there was raw advocacy taking place at the state department briefings, why is it that there is no reporter who is advocating a position that is at least not antagonistic towards Israel, if not one that is knowledgeable and asserts a position consistent with an Israeli version of reality?
