Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Today's Worst Use of the Passive Voice
From a Washington Post staff editorial:
An incident in which five Egyptian guards were killed when Israeli forces pursued terrorists crossing the border helped to trigger the upsurge in tensions with Cairo.
Were killed? Who or what killed them? Did they fall into a pit of vipers? Did God smite the Egyptian guards? Were they, perhaps, swallowed up by the Red Sea? Because, hey, these kinds of things have happened before, right?
Media reporting on the incident informs us that the IDF in fact killed these five Egyptian guards. Israelis and Israeli allies can all surely agree this was a bit of an own goal on the part of the IDF, since Israel and Egypt are in the process of renegotiating the terms of their relationship after the fall of Hosni Mubarak and -- keep your fingers crossed -- the return of democratic politics in Egypt.
The recent events in which Egyptian protesters stormed the Israeli embassy in Cairo were shocking. The Egyptian government's failure to protect the embassy of a government with whom it has full diplomatic relations was unforgivable. And, as the editorial points out, the way in which Arab regimes deflect attention away from their own problems toward Israel is both pathetic and habitual. But does it actually serve any useful purpose to pretend our Israeli friends are just passive by-standers to what is taking place in the Middle East? Sometimes, in their efforts to counter terrorism, Israel is its own worst enemy.
The tactical and operational decisions of Israeli commanders often have negative strategic effects or are taken in a strategic vacuum. Surely we can and should just admit this, right, and help our Israeli friends to realize this as well?
Update: Here is the original Washington Post report on the incident, which followed an attack that killed eight Israelis. Note how, in the original report, the murder of Israelis is described in the active voice, whereas the killing of Egyptians is, again, described in the passive voice.
The Egyptian government had demanded an Israeli apology for and joint investigation into the border skirmish, in which an Egyptian military officer and two policemen were killed. It had also criticized statements by Israeli officials about Egypt after the attack in southern Israel, which killed eight people.
When Arabs kill Israelis, the reader can understand their frustration and anger because agency is established. By contrast, since Arabs are killed by ... Magic? The Hand of God? Too many bad Egyptian cigarettes? ... the reader is left to wonder why these irrational Arabs are so angry and frustrated. I don't mean to go all Orwell on you kids, but language matters. The Washington Post can dismiss Egyptian popular anger toward Israel as something ginned up by cynical Arab leaders in part because it never honestly describes an Israeli action that killed five Egyptians.
Of course, you did not
Of course, you did not mention the eight murdered Jews. Do you have a picture of William Church on your desk?
Now you've decided to mention
Now you've decided to mention the Jews. Protecting your reputation, perhaps? Will your Wilsonian racism stretch to mention of the fact that six of the Jews were civilians?
"Seven of the attackers were
"Seven of the attackers were killed by Israeli forces and Egypt said five of its men died in the ***crossfire***.The incident touched off the most serious diplomatic row with Egypt since a popular revolt overthrew Hosni Mubarak in February.'
Emphasis mine (from http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/08/25/164076.html). Basically, it is not clear who killed them so the passive voice might be unavoidable. Of course, popular perception (like yourself) attributes it to Israel but the countries are investigating.
AM, you asked the most
AM, you asked the most important question right at the start of your post, but then you dropped it: "Who or what killed them?"
You infer that the Washington Post describes the deaths of Israelis and Egyptians in different ways because of some underlying bias. But isn't also possible that we don't yet know precisely what happened on that border? In that case, saying that Egyptian soldiers "were killed" is about as accurate as one can get.
You describe "media reporting" as being definitive in this case, establishing Israeli culpability, when you of all people should know how unreliable the media can be, especially in the Middle East. There exist credible media reports that give the number killed as both 5 and 8 Egyptian soldiers, and that assign blame for their deaths to Israeli fire, terrorist fire, friendly (Egyptian) fire, or some combination of the three.
Your main point, that all deaths are equally tragic, is well taken, but be careful not to jump on the bias bandwagon just because it's there. When the results of the joint investigation by the Egyptian and Israeli governments tell us what really happened then you can start dissecting editorial language, but until then you're jumping the gun.
"Too many bad Egyptian
"Too many bad Egyptian cigarettes?"
You jest, but have you ever tried Cleopatra?
... coming to think of it, the government's attempts to draw some desperately needed cash from raised tobacco taxes IS probably one of the things fueling frustrations on Cairo's streets right now. What's the only thing more likely to topple a government than one million revolutionary Egyptians in Midan Tahrir? That's right: one million revolutionary Egyptians who are out of smokes.
You're rushing to judgement.
You're rushing to judgement. It is indeed not clear who is responsible for their deaths, and Israel isn't taking responsibility just yet.
Despite "common knowledge", it is not established that the Egyptian soldiers were shot by IDF. The circumstances surrounding the incident are murky. IDF says its soldiers were shot upon while in pursuit of the fleeting terrorists, who apparently ran away towards a Egypt army position. Local commanders claimed in interviews that soldiers never took aim at the Egyptians, and at-least one improvised charge exploded near the Egyptian patrol.
After the initial Israeli expression of regret, the Egyptian government decided to postpone further accusations, pending a formal IDF investigation in which Egyptian officers will take part.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/foreign-ministry-israel-eg...
Chomsky, is that you
Chomsky, is that you preparing for the newest edition of Manufacturing Consent?
The israeli embassy
The israeli embassy incident... and regarding what you said about how long the egiptian police took to get to the place... It just reminds me of the american embassy incident in islamabad during General's Zia era... strangely too slow.
I think the Arab Spring is not really going to be so flowery as most think.
To everyone above: You all
To everyone above:
You all make great points. I'm sure that the IDF, whom you all implicitly defend, is comprised of mosly inaccurate riflemen, who don't shoot to kill with no hesitancy. Those 18 year olds are very concious of
Also, to follow your collective logic, we should point out that it isn't conclusive who killed the Israeli citizens. It's well known that Israeli civilians are well armed, and while they mostly have a reputation of restraint there is the Rambo out there. "Basically, it is not clear who killed them so the passive voice might be unavoidable. Of course, popular perception (like yourself) attributes it to [terrorists,] but the countries are investigating." I, and every other Orwellian, would appreciate it if you would all drop whatever you're doing (I promise, it's not this important) and write the Washington Post about this agregious grammar mistake as soon as possible.
Also, talk of Cleopatra's just makes me homesick. There's nothing like a waking up to a Cleopatra and a Stella, beautiful women that they are.
"An incident in which five
"An incident in which five Egyptian guards were killed when IDF Solider by the name of "Sgt. Nikita" pursued the terrorists crossing the border, placing each of them in the deadly Damascus head-leg-lock, helped to trigger the upsurge in tensions with Cairo. Perhaps the UN should be investigating this incident for crimes against humanity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9qYyBbz3Yw
Andrew, thank you for manning
Andrew, thank you for manning up and doing a post on this topic. I know you don't like to be a flak-catcher on the Israel-Palestine issue, and you're aware the flak will come when saying just about anything. But that's an occupational hazard of what you do! Thanks for not being cowed.
Exum, not really sure it
Exum, not really sure it matters. The Egyptians soldiers are passively and actively dead.
Even I, who speaks American not the Queen's English figured it out. More the same, different day.
I am not really concerned about the Turks, they have pretty good control. The Egyptians people are a wild card, they make a bunch of noise for CCN. Good news is the Egyptian military is not going to start anything with the Israelis, they know it is bad for business.
The conflict at the Israeli Embassy is just uncomfortable. Egypt is reminding the world it has no government.
Not really sure if it matters what Israelis do tactically or strategically. Iran's leaders are not going to change their feelings towards Israel. The rub between Islam and Jews is not going to disappear over night. The Arabs are going to support Palestine no matter how much land the Jews give up on the West Bank. Every ME peace deal has reenforced my words, they have a short half-life.
Think about the only thing that would settle the issue is for Israelis to leave on the ship they came on, or the whole Jewish population convert to Islam.
It just ain't going to happen. The US paid a lot of aid to keep the status quo.
Egypt gets a lot of wealth from tourism. Over all, the Egyptian people had more money in their pockets and jobs to feed their families when the peace held with Israel. The Arab Spring was about opportunity.
Looks like Egypt is going full speed backwards.
Egyptians are worried about the West thinking that they are all terrorist. Wonder why. When was the last riot? Do it once, you're fighting for your freedoms. Do it over and over and over, you hurt your credibility to get World backing.
Talking about tactics and strategy. It is a double edged blade.
There is linkage between the '79 treaty and the $3B foreign aid that Egypt receives from the US. I would hope that Washington is smart enough that if Egypt rewrites the Camp David Accord, Washington sees it as an opportunity to take the foreign aid off the table.
Egyptians are going to have to show they are serious about peace or the Arab Spring will become the Arab Winter.
No peace, NO JOBS.
You are absolutely correct in
You are absolutely correct in stating that language matters. I'm British and so don't often read the American press so I don't know what the norm is there, but I can tell you that over here it is the exact opposite of what you describe. When Israelis are killed it is described in the passive voice whereas when Arabs are killed it is describe in the active voice. In fact the papers in Britain rarely report when Israelis are killed, only reporting when Arabs are killed and then perhaps mentioning that it was in response to an attack.
I think it would be interesting to conduct a study on the kind of language typically used by the media in a range of countries on a particular issue compared to the general consensus of opinion of people in that country with regard to the issue being reported on. I think we'd find that there is more correlation between a persons thinking on a particular issue and the way in which things are reported by the media than with that persons ideology.
While I'm tempted to agree
While I'm tempted to agree with the spirit of AM's remarks here, on second thought it might be wise to withhold judgment. And remember also that Washington Post reporters very likely have long-established sources in Israel, and do not have the same kind of sources in Sinai.
That's not a defense of or excuse for misusing language, but generally American reporters write what they know. If they haven't seen something themselves, they quote sources who have. If they don't have sources, the specificity of their reporting tends to decline -- in most cases, properly so.
I concede the possibility that some reporter in the field or editor in Washington simply thought Israeli deaths mattered and Egyptian deaths mattered less. I wouldn't assume that to be the case without investigating -- something that AM might easily do himself, were he so inclined. I'd be interested to learn what he found out.
Imagine, for the sake of
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that there is an armed guerrilla movement in Mexico seeking to restore the territories lost in the 1840s, and they had a history of killing American civilians. The Mexican public is broadly sympathetic to their position. The junta in charge of the country keeps the clamps on them most of the time, but is undergoing a period of turmoil, and doesn't have full control over the northern border.
Then, there's an attack on civilians in El Paso, with the militants coming from Juarez. 8 American civilians are killed by the militants. 5 Mexican troops are killed by American border patrol in the confusion, by mistake or as a price tag, for the more sinister-minded.
Mexican protestors react by burning American flags, demanding the treaty be voided, and then attack the American embassy. Moreover, no apologies ("regrets" if you like) are offered by the Mexican government or any sector of Mexican society for the American deaths.
Really, we would apologize? How insulted would we be when the EU, coming to us as our "friend," tells us the proper next step would be to address their grievances? How quickly would we hang up when we're instructed that the insults to Mexican dignity can no longer continue? And how pissed at our leaders would be if they caved in any way?
Obviously there's a big brother/little brother dynamic to the US/Israel relationship so that we can talk to them in ways that nobody in the world can talk to us. But if you're going to argue that the "Arab Street" now matters in foreign policy, it's worth noting where we fundamentally disagree with it, and figuring out our red lines.
It's a weird phenomenon and
It's a weird phenomenon and I'm curious how it started, but that passive voice thing with fatalities involving the security forces of Israeli is quite persistent. There was a lot of ink spilled on how 9 Turkish activists died after Israeli commandos stormed their boat... how about israeli commandos stormed a boat and killed nine Turkish activists? Remarkably consistent over the years.
Muq, you're going against
Muq, you're going against your self-imposed hands-off policy towards Israeli-Palestinian relations... BPT weather the storm!
...but yes, I agree entirely with the point you're making.
Add your comment