Find the adjectives

We all know that in journalism it is the job of the reporter to answer 5 W’s – Who, what, where, when, and why. Usually some combination of nouns and verbs – with perhaps some articles, adverbs and prepositions – will suffice. So when you start seeing a proliferation of adjectives you need to ask, “what else is the reporter telling me?”For our first edition of “Find the adjective” we will explicate In Israel, Some See No Option but War
By Griff Witte of the Washington Post.

Here’s the setup:

SDEROT, Israel — Aharon Peretz has spent most of his 51 years in this cactus-fringed, working-class town, and he would like to stay.But his wife and six children feel differently: Daily retreats to the basement during rocket strikes from the nearby Gaza Strip have frayed their nerves, and an attack that cost an uncle both his legs has convinced them it’s time to go.

Peace will return for his family, Peretz has decided, only if Israel chooses to go to war with his neighbors.

Now here’s the next paragraph:

“There is no other option,” he said. “Israel must enter Gaza and deal seriously with those who are launching these Qassams,” as the crude rockets are known.

What’s the only adjective that the reporter uses? Did you say “crude?” Why that’s 100% correct! Excellent. So what is the reporter telling us? Why he must be telling us that the threat of the Qassams is not that great because it’s a “crude” rocket. See how enlightening this exercise is!

OK. Ready for the next paragraph?

That sentiment is gaining currency across Israel, and the political rhetoric is growing more bellicose. With each new barrage of rockets, the government comes under greater pressure to conduct a massive military operation that might improve conditions in Sderot, but could also entail heavy casualties on both sides and further undermine the already anemic U.S.-backed peace process.

Hmm. Let’s see there’s “bellicose” and “massive” and “heavy.” So immediately after minimizing the threat to Israel, the reporter uses words to show that Israel’s response would be “massive.” Implicitly, he’s saying that a response from Israel will necessarily be out of proportion to the threat.

Another paragraph and more adjectives:

The government has so far resisted the calls for a wider war beyond its present Gaza strategy of intense political pressure, a crushing economic embargo and frequent military strikes targeting those suspected of responsibility for the rockets. A full-scale invasion, officials say, could backfire and benefit Hamas, the armed Islamic movement that controls the territory. Israel also insists it does not want to be drawn back into Gaza less than three years after it withdrew its settlers and troops.

Now this paragraph is a bit trickier, because some of the adjectives are hidden as participles. So let’s have at it: “intense” and “crushing” and “frequent” actions are taken against those “suspected” of attacking Israel. So again Israeli plans are described with certainty and intensity whereas the actions of Hamas are given a level of deniability.

I’d also argue that after the Gazan shopping spree in the Sinai, it’s hard to say that the economic embargo has been all that “crushing.”

There is of course one adjective missing: “terrorist.” In describing Hamas, the reporter can’t even call it “militant,” it’s “armed.” The NRA would fit that description too.

We’ll skip a few paragraphs to:

Still, Dror said, the cost of an invasion would be high. Gaza is one of the world’s most densely populated places, with likely military targets scattered throughout civilian areas. The military estimates that in a full-scale invasion, about 100 Israeli soldiers and 1,000 Palestinians would die, he said.

OK, here my beef is with an *adverb*: “likely.” Military targets are scattered throughout civilian areas. That’s part of what makes Hamas a terrorist organization. Instead the reporter qualifies this Hamas strategy. No qualification is needed.

The Qassams have made life difficult in Sderot, a desert town of 20,000, and other areas near the Gaza border. But so far, casualties have been limited.By contrast, over the first two months of the year, Israeli military operations involving both ground troops and airstrikes have resulted in the deaths of 126 Palestinians, according to health officials in Gaza. The Israeli military says that in the past three months, 180 Palestinian fighters, as well as 13 civilians, have died during its operations.

The key adjective in these two paragraphs is “difficult.” Qassams that could land anywhere are not dangerous, just difficult. On the other hand, Israel’s killed quite a few Palestinians. That the vast majority of them were indeed involved in terrorist attacks against civilians doesn’t seem to play into the reporter’s moral calculus. And again, the deaths of the civilians would seem to be a function of the Hamas tactic of placing weapons and terrorists in civilian areas against the rules of international law.

“What’s coming out of Gaza is not a strategic threat,” said Shalom Harari, a former top Israeli military intelligence official. “It’s terrible. It puts political pressure on the government. But it’s not a strategic threat.”Harari is concerned it could soon become one, however, as Hamas gains military strength through support from Iran. That assistance could in time mean rockets with much longer range and far greater accuracy and lethality, he said. The government’s critics on the right raise the same concern in arguing for the Israel Defense Forces to go into Gaza as soon as possible. The number of Israelis under threat from the rocket fire, they say, is bound to grow unless the military acts.

“Soon enough, they’ll also threaten Tel Aviv if we do nothing to stop them,” said Yuval Steinitz, a lawmaker from the Likud Party, which advocates a hard-line policy in dealing with the Palestinians.

Steinitz said the military would have to occupy Gaza for, at most, a few months. In that time, he said, Israeli forces could eliminate Hamas’s weapon stockpiles, destroy the rocket launch sites and reassert control over the Egyptian border, where explosives are smuggled in. The casualties may be high, he said, but the operation would save lives in the long run.

“I’m not saying it will be easy. The world, at the beginning, might condemn us,” Steinitz said. “But this is the only real solution. This war of attrition is not good for us. No state would tolerate daily rocket attacks on its soil.”

So first an expert with no ideological is interviewed (this is a case of a missing adjective) who says that Hamas doesn’t present a “strategic” threat to Israel. Then a counterpoint is provided by Yuval Steinitz (who, by the way, is a former member of Peace Now, but came to his senses) who is described as “hard-line.” It’s not clear that Dr. Steinitz’s judgment is any less valid, but the political qualification serves notice of the reporter’s disapproval of Steinitz.

There is no guarantee, however, that a major military operation would succeed in stopping the attacks. It could increase them. Military analysts and government officials also worry that Israeli troops would get stuck in Gaza, locked in urban warfare with a guerrilla force that has been preparing for just such a fight.

OK, here there are no “adjectives” I could point to. Still the thought that a major military operation would increase attacks is pure speculation. Arms and terrorists don’t spontaneously generate. Destroy enough of both and the enemy won’t be able to respond with the same frequency as it did before.

Matti Steinberg, a former adviser on Palestinian affairs to Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security agency, said there is a far less costly way to stop the attacks: a cease-fire.Without one, Steinberg said, Israel is on a path toward war, which could have disastrous consequences for the U.S.-backed peace process that began in Annapolis late last year. “The entire rationale of Annapolis would be doomed,” he said.

An invasion, he said, would ultimately strengthen support for Hamas and undercut Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who leads the more secular Fatah movement.

Here’s another expert without an adjective attached to his name, so it’s not hard to figure out that he will be against an invasion. Why ceasefires have worked so well in the past, let’s try another one. Why the “rationale’ of Annapolis isn’t damaged by continued terror against Israeli civilians is not explained.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum agreed. He said the group was expecting a major Israeli offensive and warned that it would only lead to more armed resistance. “Any military operation against Gaza will not give security to the occupation,” he said. “It will just increase the popularity of Hamas.”

And in case we didn’t understand that an invasion would be bad, the reporter gets an opinion from a Hamas spokesman. Would any degree of self-interest be involved? Perhaps his statement betrays a fear of serious Israeli military action?

Again I have no adjectives to criticize here, just noting that a Hamas spokesman is not exactly a disinterested observer. But the adjective “hard-line” is missing.

Israel’s Gaza policy has already drawn intense international criticism, particularly for its reliance on economic pressure, which U.N. and European Union observers have warned could lead to a humanitarian crisis.

So here’s another problem helpfully identified by the reporter, Israel has been subjected to “intense” criticism because it uses “economic” means that could lead to a “humanitarian” crisis.

Now we saw above that war crimes (Qassams aimed at civilians) make life “difficult” in Sderot. And we’ve seen that the reporter has established the inadvisability of a military response. Now, the rather restrained Israeli response is being described as extreme. So apparently our intrepid reporter believes that the only reasonable response to terror is to allow civilians to remain targets and only employ passive protection to Sderot’s population.

Mark Regev, spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Israel’s response has been “proportionate and, within the confines of international law, what is considered justifiable self-defense.”But it has not stopped the rocket fire.

No it hasn’t. And “confines of international law” don’t particularly confine Hamas do they?

On Friday, thousands of Israelis demonstrated their solidarity with Sderot’s residents by streaming into the city to shop. Despite the threat, the cloudless winter day took on a carnival-like atmosphere, with DJs spinning dance music and shoppers walking the streets seemingly unconcerned by the possibility of an attack.”We don’t have many days like this,” said Michael Amsalam, 58, a town councilman. But he was not optimistic there would be many more.

I have no beef with these paragraphs, and the final two are fine too.

When a nearby motorcyclist unexpectedly revved his engine, Amsalam flinched, then described what it was like to hear a rocket fall on his town, with nothing to do afterward but brace for the next one.”Only the ones who live here know the feeling of the Qassam, the feeling of fear,” he said.

Maybe the Post’s reporter should live in Sderot for a week and he won’t be so quick to dismiss Israeli fears and possible plans to strike back. I don’t know that a full scale invasion is a good idea; however a news story should make an effort at balance. It was very clear how this reporter felt from his generous use of adjetives.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.