Israel's draft dodging debate

Who is the Real Israeli? The one who joins Israel's citizen army, or the one who avoids it?

That's the question being posed to Israelis these days by two competing ads that have become the latest salvos in an ongoing national debate about draft dodging.

To Israeli advertising bigwig Rami Yehoshua, the answer is clear: Real Israelis serve in the military.

So, with his oldest son preparing to start his army service, Yehoshua decided to heed the call of IDF Chief-of-Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and try to "shame" Israelis who don't serve in the military.

With the Israeli army's blessing and lots of his own money, Yehoshua created an anti-draft dodging campaign.

The centerpiece is this 30-second-ad shown on Israeli television and before movies in theaters across the country.

As the fates would have it, the anti-draft dodging commercial was shot at an Indian restaurant in Tel Aviv where a couple of anti-militarism activists work.

After seeing the ad, the activists decided to use the same restaurant, the same table, and the same scenario to film a spot-on 90 second retort.

Comments

[Edie]

So ... who are the Palestinian Israelis (who are around 20% of population)?

Since they can't serve in the IDF and therefore aren't 'Real Israelis', who are they? The Invisible Israelis?

[Steve]

If my country was in the desperate situation Israel is in with constantly being attacked by its enemies, I would demand that they execute all those who don't join to defend her.

Sounds harsh, well most of the world isn't in the situation Israel is in so of course it would tend to sound harsh.

But if they were in the situation Israel is in they would shoot draft doggers just like I would demand my country do too.

For when your country is actually having missiles dropped on it, a draft dogger takes on a whole different meaning then when a country isn't in such a physical attack but instead is fighting in other lands. When the war is on the home soil and the person still is a draft dogger that is a very clear form of treason. And traitors should be shot!

[Edie]

I understand what Steve is saying, but Israel IS 'fighting in other lands'. Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (de facto) and the Syrian Golan Heights.

There are many Israelis who would proudly serve within Israel proper and in defensive wars, but cannot in good conscious be a party to the things that happen in the Occupied Territories (well documented human rights abuses and theft of property/land). It may have changed, but the last I heard, Israel is not accomodating to those willing to serve under those stipulations.

Also, let's take Steve's logic and turn it around. Let's apply his contention: 'constantly being attacked by its enemies, I would demand that they execute all those who don't join to defend her' to the Palestinians because they ARE a people constantly attacked both militarily and economically/occupied, subjugated and have not been allowed to return to their homes after the War of 1948.

If the PA forced military service and executed anyone who didn't comply, we would say they are barbarians and inherently violent.

The Palestinians are the ones being occupied, slowly being squeezed out by Israeli policies. Both parties feel threatened; heightening tensions like this will only accelerate the downward spiral we're already on.

New thinking is needed on how to deal with this conflict; it's already too militarized and violence has gotten neither side anything except more violence.

[Steve]

Now I am not one to tell other countries what to do with their internal affairs so when I respond I am responding as it a similar situation would befall my country.

And I am not saying that if my country wasn't in such a concrete threat as my neighbor aiming missiles on me I would let the draft dogger off the hook.

I am just saying that I would support imprisonment rather than execution if it was a more general issue of "National Interest" than the raw issue of survival that Israel faces.

I don't want to see a draft dogger come out of the situation unscathed whereas the patriot often faces great personal sacrifices that minimizes his quality of life (even the lost of his life).

Now in my country we don't have the draft anymore. The military prefers people who want to serve believing that they can fill the needed demand for soldiers that way and that people who want to serve make better soldiers. Which makes sense given the situation we find ourselves in.

Therefore the issue of draft dogging doesn't come up.

But if it did. If it was needed then those who refuse should at least be imprisoned for a period of time.

Now if was a situation where the enemy is at the doorstep, where citizens are dying in numbers due to the acts of the enemy, where the issue of the very survival of my nation is at stake then those who refuse to serve at such a critical time should be shot.

Hell, depending upon the situation I would shoot them myself.

As late as the first World War desertion from the military while fighting the war meant execution.

The establishment of a country takes extreme sacrifice, extreme patriotism yes to the point of zealotry and yeah some extreme cruelty.

Israel isn't unique in how it formed by taking over the lands of another but what was unique was the timing. Other nations had formed themselves much earlier and had already done the cruel stuff that they needed to do. Therefore they could afford to act all more moral than thou even though they established nationhood in much the same way. But Israel hadn't "wiped out the Indians" yet. It still needed a 19th century solution in the 20th century.

The fact is the two cultures (if I can even call what the Palestinians have a culture) can not exist side by side. One must fade away as the other prospers.

That's the whole cold truth of it all. And where you stand is basically a question of who you are. I personally think the Israeli people and their culture is much better for the world, and more specifically my country, and that is why I tend to side with them.

[Steve]

There are many Israelis who would proudly serve within Israel proper and in defensive wars, but cannot in good conscious be a party to the things that happen in the Occupied Territories.

But still it is a situation where citizens are dying on your home soil due to the actions of an enemy.

But it is your country so you decide what's best for you.

I personally just don't think a nation can't exist when its people don't have total contempt and the strictest sanctions against those who refuse to service when the very issue of the survival of the nation is at stake. I don't think a nation can survive if the response to aggression upon ones soil isn't single minded zealot patriotism (the enemy might not be on the soil but the effects of the enemy, the missiles that kill the nations civilians are on the nation's soil).

But again how a country decides to deal with its traitors is indeed a domestic issue, so I am certainly not telling the Israelis what they should do with those who would evade service when the families of their countrypeople are being killed in their own neighborhoods by an enemy.

I can just say looking at it externally, it is my opinion that unless every citizen including those not in the military consider themselves a soldier and trains in military skills, I believe that Israeli's enemies will be the ones who are eventually successful. It takes a certain degree of militancy to form nation and Israel still hasn't completely destroyed those who would challenge its nationhood.

But again, it is up to the citizens of Israel to ultimately decide what to do.

[Steve]

I just think that Israel would be better off if they do one swift act of cruel violence to wipe out its enemies.

Sure the world will condemn it. Yeah future generations who will find themselves in a much more secure and comfortable position will condemn it as well. But perhaps that is what it will take to ensure that the Israeli culture will survive. And you look at every other nation in the world and that is what they had to do.

And after all, what will the world do? They haven't done anything about Iran or North Korea. The world thinks you have nukes. So, ultimately they would be afraid to do anything.

It pays to be "the bad boy" as that makes you unpredictable and it will make people want to make concessions to you.

It is cruel, and yeah it is harsh, but it is what every other nation in some time in its history had to do. It's the birth pains of the formation of nationhood. So you really have two choices. Do your necessary historical cruelty or be the ones who fade away.

But if you do want to survive as a nation it is better to do your "historical cruelty" sooner than later.

[Steve]

"The Palestinians are the ones being occupied, slowly being squeezed out by Israeli policies."

Well in perhaps 100 years or so you can give the remnants of them a good tax situation while allowing them to form Casinos.

They can then become rich and integrate better into society.

[Tina]

It might also be worth mentioning that the vast majority of Israelis agree with their government. Had the Arabs not started the wars they would not have lost all this territory. After the war Israel offered to give them the land in return for recognition which the Arabs states refused. I'm not sure therefore that it qualifies as occupied territory even if that's what the Arabs and others want to call it.

All that being said, the point is there was a feeling in Israel during more peaceful times that it wasn't worth fighting with the youths who did not want to go into the military and the assumption was that the military would need fewer soldiers as wars became more dependent on technology.

Unfortunately that did not happen and now many who did not serve are feeling the heat of their decisions. As a parent I would not and did not discourage my children from service as I feel it is very important aspect of being an Israeli.

[Edie]

Wow, Steve. From your statements, there's no common ground. You are obviously a very military-minded person who strongly believes in use of force to achieve ones' objectives and like any good soldier has de-humanized 'the enemy'; so much so that you can call for - not only their ethnic cleansing - but complete extermination. You said yourself, "Sure the world will condemn it. Yeah future generations who will find themselves in a much more secure and comfortable position will condemn it as well. But perhaps that is what it will take to ensure that the Israeli culture will survive."

When one can de-humanize 'the other' in such a manner it is surely scary times. This level of de-humanization leads to genocides (See Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo ... Nazi Germany).

I DON'T believe "One must fade away as the other prospers" b.s.

You state that one reason you support Israel is because Israel is good for your country. As an American, I would recommend Professors Mearsheimer and Walt's book, 'The Israel Lobby' which contains an analysis of the U.S./Israel relationship and how that relationship benefitted the U.S. during the Cold War vs. now. Our complete support of Israeli policies and actions aren't found to be good for our own current national security, nor is it an asset politically.

I believe in policies that are effective. Obviously, Israel's iron fist approach and the Palestinians use of violence haven't gotten either party anywhere, but has only escalated tensions and prompted more violence.

[Max]

I don’t get what this whole disproportionately thing is all about. You don’t win wars by acting proportionally.

You win wars by crushing your enemy. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They put one of your men in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue.

You must fight on their level. With trickery, brutality, finality. You must match their evil.

Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words ‘Civis Romanis’ I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens?

Tit for tat does lead to more violence. And isn’t that what proportionality really means?

If you aren’t fighting with disproportionately then you aren’t fighting to win, And if you aren’t fighting to win then you are just continuing the cycle of violence. Don’t get me wrong. I am not one of those who say that violence never solved anything. Ask what the city fathers of Hiroshima what they say about it and you know what they would say? NOTHING, Hiroshima was destroyed. Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn’t solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.

No, I am not a pacifist. The truth is that when you fight you fight in order to totally destroy your enemy’s will and capacity to fight. You totally overwhelm them.

[Edie]

Max,

If I were alive two thousand years ago, I just pray I was a Roman citizen and not the poor stiff in his way.

I thought the purpose of learning our history and advancing as a civilization was to build our knowledge and understanding and not make the same mistakes made in the past.

You people advocating a superior power, completely crushing the people they're occupying and that they ethnically cleansed 60 years ago do understand this is not Hollywood, that this is not the Thunder Dome?

We're talking about REAL people? Real babies whose flesh is so soft to the touch and plump one just enjoys holding them? Grandmothers and grandfathers (and fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters) whose only crime was being born The Occupied, The Disenfranchised, The Cleansed?

Who are you to judge who is evil and who is just? Who decides who should crush who and when?

Someone using this logic would applaud and admire Saddam Hussein when he shot his cabinet members or gassed his own people. Now THERE was a man who knew how to deal with his enemies.

This logic would support the Serbian ethnic cleansing and massacres in Kosovo (you know, to rid the land of those 'evil' Kosovans).

Hello! WWII was suppose to teach us that even if war is necessary, war is evil. Certain protections were set up to help protect those too weak to protect themselves or those without the power - those NOT Roman citizens.

[Todd]

Hi Dion, thanks for this blog, I have followed your work for years. Now, let me ask: why are you not in Gaza? How could you miss a story like this? And now that you missed it, how can you not go and investigate what happened?

I am sure most of your readers don't spot the significance of datelining Jerusalem, but lots of your readers are serious enough to know that you phoned it in. And on a story of such import. A story that students, researchers and historians many look to, especially given the 'shoah' comments.. this last spasm may well find its way into the pantheon and you reported from Jerusalem.

There must be a story behind this, right?

And do you have any control over what your bureau publishes? Because it seems outrageous to have a story about Israeli zest for the IDF on the day after a gruesome 96 hours in Gaza. You must have logged and written that story from Tel Aviv during the carnage in Gaza?

Seriously, how can this happen, Dion?

[Dion]

Todd.
As someone who has followed my work for years, you know that I spend a lot of time in Gaza, that I was the only US print reporter there when Hamas took military control last June, that I was there when the border with Egypt was demolished in January, that I investigated the infamous Gaza beach shelling of the family picnic, that I was kidnapped there in 05, and that I regularly report from Gaza.
The most deadly day in Gaza in years took place on a Saturday when Israel closes the border with Gaza for the Jewish sabbath, making it impossible to get in. (They close the border Friday afternoon and re-open it on Sunday morning.)
That being said, we have a trusted colleague in Gaza, Ahmed Abu Hamdan, who is our eyes and ears on the ground when we can't be there ourselves.
The draft dodging story was reported and written before the latest events in Gaza. And, because of the news from Gaza, I did actually suggest that we hold off on releasing this story.

[Max]

"If I were alive two thousand years ago, I just pray I was a Roman citizen and not the poor stiff in his way."

Yeah, absolutely. The poor stiff didn't have a chance.

"We're talking about REAL people? Real babies whose flesh is so soft to the touch and plump one just enjoys holding them?"

For the Israeli the choice is either their babies or the Palies babies. For every human being the protection of their family is most fundamental. It really is all about survival in its most raw form.

"Grandmothers and grandfathers (and fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters) whose only crime was being born The Occupied, The Disenfranchised, The Cleansed?"

Yeah, what your mom says about life not being fair, no truer words have ever been spoken. One doesn't realize the profound way that is true until later in life.

"WWII was suppose to teach us that even if war is necessary, war is evil."

Absolutely. It is evil. It is hell. That is why when one engages in war everything must be done towards victory. Because war is the absolute last resort. War is hell so the alternative, defeat, must be unimaginable so everything must be done to prevent that from happened.

And when war is necessary the greatest evil is delaying ending the war by not doing whatever it takes to win. A prolonged war is far worse than an extended war due to some misguided view of mercy. It is not mercy. Mercy is actually ending the war as quickly as possible through swift ruthless actions so some sense of normalcy can return.

"WWII was suppose to teach us..."

What WWII should have taught the Jews is the need for a strong Jewish state to protect them. It is only through strength that they can ensure that their people and culture will survive. We can only wonder how Nazi Germany could have been different had more Jews there owned guns.

[Max]

"Who are you to judge who is evil and who is just? Who decides who should crush who and when?"

I am not deciding who is evil. I am not judging the Palies (well I have to admit I do see the Israeli culture as far superior). But in this case it really isn't about good and evil.

Who decides? Well in some sense it is nature. The stronger one gets to decide. That is why one needs to try to be a strong as possible.

And to answer the question when they decide, well that would be up to the leaders of the stronger country to decide whenever they feel they must to fulfill the most fundamental reason for the existence of their government which it to protect their citizens from outside threats.

A government who can't protect its citizens from outside attacks has failed in its most fundamental purpose and isn't a government deserving of respect.

[Steve]

"And when war is necessary the greatest evil is delaying ending the war by not doing whatever it takes to win. A prolonged war is far worse than an extended war due to some misguided view of mercy. It is not mercy. Mercy is actually ending the war as quickly as possible through swift ruthless actions so some sense of normalcy can return."

Absolutely right Max.

But in one way it is a good thing that War is Hell.

"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." That is what General Robert E Lee said.

[Max]

Thank you.

But I do see I made an error in my statement.

I meant a prolonged war due to some misguided view of mercy is in actuality far worse than a quick brutal ruthless attack ending the war with finality.

[Steve]

Yeah, that is what I thought you meant.

It is like what General William Tecumseh Sherman said in his letter to the citizens of Atlanta.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; ...I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."

[Max]

Absolutely. War is such Hell it needs to be ended as quickly as possible through quick brutal decisive action. You need to crush your enemy as quickly as possible with the only caveat on that is being that the way you should choose to crush your enemy is the way that would cause the least casualties on your side.

There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war except its ending.

And as General Sherman said you can't refine war. Too many people think you can.

[Steve]

"If I were alive two thousand years ago, I just pray I was a Roman citizen and not the poor stiff in his way."

The poor stiff would either need to get out of the way or ally himself with someone as strong or stronger than the Romans.

And since 2000 years ago there was no one who had the power to go up against the Romans the second option would have been unavailable.

So the poor stiff needed to get out of the way or be crushed under the foot of the Romans.

These days however most countries aren't interested in increasing their borders and so it tends to be frown upon to attack in other to gain something. That would be inappropriate. Israel for example is attacking because their own citizens were harmed by the attacks of their enemies and therefore the government needed to engage in its most fundamental reason of existence, that is to protect its own citizens from outside attacks.

[Brian]

Dion, "Ahmed Abu Hamdan"?

That doesn't sound like an American name.

Where is he from?

Is he a local?

If he is how "trusted" can he be. He obviously has a personal interest in the story he is covering.

You call him a "colleague" yet can he really be if he is a local? I would expect him to have a perspective and an agenda, and actually would think less of him if he didn't. You can't be part of that area without having an interest and an agenda.

[Brian]

His people are being bombed. They are being killed. How can any decent person report impartially about that!

I am not saying that Israel is wrong in their actions, they have to do what they have to in order to protect their citizens, but to expect a local who is seeing his neighbors killed to report impartially is wrong and if he indeed could do that he would be a poor excuse for an human being indeed.

[Edie]

Max & Steve,

I'll just leave your little love-fest alone. Ya'll should play 'RISK' together online.

Brian,

You're questioning is really very prejudiced. The majority of U.S. journalists stationed in the Middle East, including specifically Israel, for decades have been Jewish. There are many that accuse the biased (I'd more likely call it incomplete or mediocre) reporting from the region to be because the reporters have been Jewish and therefore have an inate sympathy to Israel.

The embedded reporters sent to Iraq were accused of being biased because, even if subconscious, they'd have a sympathy towards the men and women they were working besides.

The man in Gaza should not be pre-judged as biased simply based on his name.

Don't you agree Mr. Nissenbaum?

[Brian]

It isn't prejudiced.

It is just saying that he is going to report from a Palestinian perspective instead of an American perspective.

Which is not wrong I guess as long as it is specified in those articles that he is writing from a Palestinian perspective.

[Brian]

Ahmed Abu Hamdan is going to report in a way that best serves the Palestinian people (assuming of course that he is a Palestinian). I wouldn't expect anything less from him and indeed wouldn't respect him if he didn't report in such a way.

[Edie]

As adults, we should always take a source's author's background and perspective into consideration.

For example, if I pick up a book by Alan Dershowitz, I'm going to know his views and take what he says with a grain of salt. The same goes for a book by Ali Abunimah.

Why all of a sudden, the concern that an Arab is going to report from the Arab perspective? Do you think the same should hold true of Jewish reporters in the region, for Dion? Yes, many are American or European, but Israel gives automatic citizenship to any Jew in the world and many are known to have an affinity towards the country and a natural sympathy. Heck, probably many Jewish reporters hold dual citizenships. Should all Jewish reporters in the region have a disclaimer with their articles? 'This person is Jewish, article may contain biased information. Read at your own risk.'

Journalists, no matter how well trained are always going to have their built-in, subjective, biased thoughts. Most are able to keep it out of their reporting, some can't even if it's unintentional. It's up to us to be intelligent enough to get our information from multiple sources and analyze what we're reading with alittle common sense.

You say what you're saying is not prejudiced, but I find your interest in this gentleman from Gaza because he's an Arab and assertion that his reports need a disclaimer racist.

[Edie]

Brian,

You say you wouldn't 'respect' Mr. Abu Hamdan if he didn't write from the Palestinian perspective (if he were indeed Palestinian) ... I wouldn't respect him if he did.

Most media outlets in the ME are party or organizationally owned and report from that party's perspective - fine, but if you're writing for an independent agency or media outlet, then you need to provide the facts and only the facts. This is the representation U.S. news outlets give their readers, that they're just reporting the facts in the most accurate way possible.

Like I said before, everybody has built in prejudices and opinions, good journalists try to keep these OUT of their reporting.

Dion is Jewish. I'm not going to automatically discount all he says simply because of this fact and from following his writings (closely) for awhile I'd say he does a pretty good job. Sometimes his built in prejudiced (or should I just say) ingrained ideas come forward and I call him on it.

As a professional, any journalist SHOULD NOT write from their peoples' perspective.

[Dion]

Hmm. My colleague in our Jerusalem office is Israeli and sometimes he does reporting and stories for McClatchy. As a "local," would you immediately assume that his work was also biased? Much of the on-the-ground reporting done by Western news organizations in Iraq is done by Iraqis. Does that mean their work is biased? I don't want to launch into a debate about journalistic objectivity, so I will simply say that I have worked with Ahmed for years and he is a professional journalist.

[Brian]

Edie

"You say you wouldn't 'respect' Mr. Abu Hamdan if he didn't write from the Palestinian perspective (if he were indeed Palestinian) ... I wouldn't respect him if he did."

What kind of man wouldn't do everything in his power to help his people!

Dion said:

"Much of the on-the-ground reporting done by Western news organizations in Iraq is done by Iraqis."

And it shows, believe me it shows!

[Brian]

Edie said:

"Do you think the same should hold true of Jewish reporters in the region, for Dion?"

Sure there should be a disclaimer. What would be wrong about that?

[Edie]

Brian,

A professional journalist for a reputable organization is obligated to adhere to journalistic ethics much like a doctor must adhere to medical ethical practices.

So, who wouldn't use/abuse his profession to help his people? A professional.

As I said before, no one should believe anything they read as gospel. Today, it's easier than ever to get news from multiple sources. We're obligated to do so.

I don't care if reporting from and about Israel and the Palestinians is written by an Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Secularist, black, white, Asian ... Bias can be ascertained easily enough.

One cannot judge a person's biases simply by their ethnicity or religion; once again - this is racist.

What would be wrong with that (disclaimers)? Everything.

[Steve]

Your people come before your profession.

[Dion]

Our job as reporters is to present the facts as we understand them so that others can make informed decisions.
As is obvious in this debate, people can look at the same set of facts and draw entirely different conclusions.
Ahmed is a valuable asset who knows what is happening in Gaza. He literally puts his life on the line to help get the news.
In Iraq, too many Iraqi reporters, including some who worked with us at McClatchy, have lost their lives trying to tell the story.
It is people like Ahmed and our award-winning Iraqi staff who should be thanked, not criticized, for helping to provide access, insight and perspective so that McClatchy readers can better understand difficult, complex situations.

[Brian]

So, why aren't we getting the full story on Iraq? I have to depend on blogs and returning vets to get the truth about what is going on over there. And it isn't the disaster you make it out to be.

But then again the Iraqis who report probably have an agenda. You don't even know much about who these Iraqis are do you? You don't know what their former associations were. You don't know whose interests they are trying to promote.

And about them being "Award" winning. Well, you pass around the awards among yourselves so it isn't that difficult to get one.

[Steve]

"Ahmed is a valuable asset who knows what is happening in Gaza."

For all you know Ahmed might be in league with the terrorists.

I am not saying he is. I am just saying you don't know. Don't tell me your organization has the infrastructure and skills to properly vent people to ensure that a terrorist who might want to get a cover as a journalist couldn't become one. It is the perfect position. First it gives him "legitimacy" which is always important and second he can use his position to promote his propaganda.

It makes sense that a terrorist would want to be a journalist. Now again Ahmed might not be in league with the terrorists, but then again he just might.

And don't tell me that he isn't because you met him and can vouch for his character.

I know people, people who I well respect that actually knew Ted Bundy as acquaintances before he was caught of course and they said they had no idea that he was a serial killer. So it is pure arrogance to think that you know another person's character enough to know that he isn't a terrorist. After all these people train themselves to deceive others.

So, someday you might find out that Ahmed is in league with the terrorists. It reminds me of the reporter who during the Cold War defended his Russian colleague who people kept saying he was a spy only to find out as the cold war was dying down, that indeed he was.

[Steve]

Oh, and Edie from your perspective Ahmed should be using his position as a journalist since they are such victims in all of this.

A profession isn't more important than the lives of your people. I am shocked that you would say it is.

[Brian]

During World War II there were some great American journalists who were covering the conflict but they always covered it from an American perspective.

Patriotism come before journalism.

[Brian]

"One cannot judge a person's biases simply by their ethnicity"

If a guy is a Palestinian he would have a Palestinian bias".

After all "Self Hating Palestinian" isn't really a common term.

And I am not saying that is wrong. Of course he should have such biases when he is seeing his people bombed and killed. For him not to have such biases would make him inhuman. So perhaps saying that he is without bias is what would truly be racist.

What would be wrong with a disclaimer at the end of an article briefly describing the factors one should take into account about the journalist that may have effected what he or she wrote (such as if the person is a Palestinian, a member of the Jewish religion, etc).

Lots of time the way that reporters deceive is not in what they write but what they don't. Errors of omission.

[Scott]

I believe the issue of news agencies using "locals" is indeed a very important one indeed.

While it is true that locals are probably much more knowledgeable about what is going on than outside journalists, they are much less able to be open about what is going on.

After all they will be personally effected by the outcome of the situation. In that case it would be impossible to remain neutral, it would be impossible to remain objective, it would be impossible not to have an agenda.

And being a local means that you have connections with people who could be hurt by unbiased reporting. You have friends, uncles, cousins, etc who of course you want to keep up good relations with.

And if a news report of yours makes people angry well its not like you can come back home, since you are home. Therefore you would expect a local to be more selective in what he or she reports than a external journalist.

And with Iraq there is an additional issue. The people of the country has been ruled for years by a totalitarian dictator where all dissent, all independent thought was crushed. So of course the institution of journalism didn't develop.

So, despite all that these "journalists" just popped out of somewhere? You would think it would take time for journalists to be trained in the principles behind journalism. But these "journalists" just emerged in a culture where free speech was suppressed for all this time?

If that can happen perhaps all the thousands of dollars that people spend at universities training to become journalists is wasted if even in a formally repressive regime "journalists" can just pop up overnight.

[Edie]

Scott,

News agencies have used 'stringers' and 'fixers' for decades. These people have usually been locals. News agencies also rely on other news agencies, made up of 'locals' to share their reports, video footage when appropriate.

This is a norm. I still find that it's interesting that this has never caused an ounce of concern until we're in the ME doing this.

Also, Scott says, "And with Iraq there is an additional issue. The people of the country has been ruled for years by a totalitarian dictator where all dissent, all independent thought was crushed. So of course the institution of journalism didn't develop."

I think you confuse Iraq with the Soviet Union of the cold war. Iraqi's are reputed to be one of the more educated and sophisticated societies in the ME due to their stability. Hussein squashed any political dissent, but their culture and 'independent thought' flourished.

[Dion]

The debate here has shifted to one about journalistic objectivity, something that is probably the topic of some extended seminar at some American university and not an issue that can be settled in a series of blog postings.
I will again say that the colleagues we work with in Gaza and Iraq and Somalia and Lebanon should be honored for the risks they take. Some of our colleagues have lost their lives and families while helping us.
I encourage you to listen to one of our Iraqi staffers here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6581029
As human beings, we all, whether American, Palestinian, Israeli, or Iraqi, have feelings about what we see and cover. But we all understand at McClatchy that our job is to present the facts as we understand them, not to offer our own opinions in the stories we write.
Journalism is not heart surgery: it does not take years to grasp the fundamental tenets of checking multiple sources, gathering information and presenting it to readers.

[Dion]

Below is a text of a speech one of our colleagues gave last fall while accepting an award for the work of the women in our Baghdad bureau.

Here is a story on the award:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/20777.html

Courage in Journalism Awards speech

Sahar Issa
McClatchy Newspapers
October 24, 2007

On behalf of the six Iraqi women of McClatchy’s Baghdad Bureau, it is a great honor for me to stand here today.

To me, this award means that my colleagues and I have succeeded in what we set out to do; and that our voices have carried, through war, through death and sorrow, through sleepless nights and fear driven days in an effort to reflect the picture of our country as we see it, and of our people as only we can truly know them.

To be a journalist in violence ridden Iraq today, ladies and gentlemen, is not a matter lightly undertaken. Every path is strewn with danger, every checkpoint, every question a direct threat.

Every interview we conduct may be our last. So much is happening in Iraq. So much that is questionable. So much that we, as journalists, try to fathom and portray to the people who care to know.

In every society there is good and bad. Laws regulate the conduct of the society. My country is now lawless. Innocent blood is shed every day, seemingly without purpose. Hundreds of thousands have been killed for seemingly no reason. It is our responsibility to do our utmost to acquire the answers, to dig them up with our bare hands if we must.

But that knowledge comes at a dear price, for since the war started, four and a half years ago, an average of about one reporter and media assistant killed every week is something we have to live with.

We live double lives. None of our friends or relatives know what we do. My children must lie about my profession. They cannot under any circumstance boast of my accomplishments, and neither can I.

Every morning, as I leave my home, I look back with a heavy heart, for I may not see it again – today may be the day that the eyes of an enemy will see me for what I am, a journalist, rather than the appropriately bewildered elderly lady who goes to look after ailing parents, across the river every day. Not for a moment can I let down my guard.

I smile as I give my children hugs and send them off to school; it's only after they turn their backs to me that my eyes fill to overflowing with the knowledge that they are just as much at risk as I am.

So why continue? Why not put down my proverbial pen and sit back?

It's because I'm tired of being branded a terrorist: tired that a human life lost in my country is no loss at all. This is not the future I envision for my children. They are not terrorists, and their lives are not valueless.

I have pledged my life – and much, much more, in an effort to open a window through which the good people in the international community may look in and see us for what we are, ordinary human beings with ordinary aspirations, and not what we have been portrayed to be.

Allow me, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to reach out. Help us to build bridges of understanding and acceptance. Even though the war has cast a dark shadow upon your nation and mine – it is never too late.

I thank my bureau chief and our editors for retaining a high standard of balance and credibility, and I thank you all for being here today.

Good Day.

[Alex]

Your Country, Your People comes before any consideration of professional ethics.