The Belgian ambassador to Israel gave an interview to an Arab-Israeli newspaper, and it has been garnering some attention these past few days.

Supporters of the Palestinian cause have been lauding the reported comments, while the Israeli government has fiercely criticized them. But according to extremely well placed sources familiar with the situation, both sides are evaluating a bastardized rendition of what was actually said. I think I know someone who needs a personal digital voice recorder for Christmas. And who needs to stop assuming journalists are not scum. Of course they are scum, unless proven otherwise.

First point: If an ambassador were to say that Sharon’s Infrastructure Minister Effi Eitam is a fascist, such a statement would indeed constitute an interference in the internal affairs of Israel. In any case, I’m not sure that such a statement would be true, strictly speaking: Eitam is certainly a bigot and a racist in favor of transferring the Palestinians out of the West Bank. Simply put, he propounds ethnic cleansing as collective punishment. Fascism, on the other hand, was primarily a socio-economic organizing principle advocating the subordination of the individual to a totalitarian state. It is true that typically, fascist dictatorships pursued a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism, but these are not usually considered the defining attributes of the movement.

Nevertheless, the term ‘fascist’ remains as an insult among the left-leaning. Fair enough.

What was actually said to the reporter regarding Eitam, on background, was that if a politician in Europe were to promote a policy of “transferring” ethnic groups, he would undoubtedly be labeled a fascist. Le Pen in his early days would rant about sending back the immigrants where they came from. And he was labeled a fascist for it. (Of late, Europe’s xenophobic parties have had a hard time deciding whether to be first and foremost anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim. It’s a problem you only get if you hate too much: The enemies of your enemies are still your enemies.)

But it’s time to put on our parsing hats. The reported comment explicitly states Eitam is a fascist. The actual comment implied many in Europe label him a fascist. And this happens to be true, regardless of whether the label is accurate. The difference is there, and it is a diplomat’s job to utter the kind of comment that was actually uttered, not the kind that was reported.

Second point: When asked about the recent comment by the British Ambassador to an Israeli General that the West Bank is the “largest detention camp in the world,” the Belgian Ambassador said that on his own recent travels in the West Bank he had seen little or no traffic between Palestinian towns, and that the people there were in a “state of collective depression.” A reporter might infer from this that the two ambassadors are essentially in agreement. But a reporter may not, as a result of such an inference, freely interchange quote attributions between the two individuals. Like I said, journalists are scum.

There is a larger point to make, however. Nuance is the first casualty of any propaganda war. All shades of gray are reclassified as either black or white. Another case in point:

When I was in Israel this summer, a Belgian court was deciding whether or not it had jurisdiction in a suit brought against Israeli PM Sharon by a Belgian-Lebanese group for his role in the Sabra and Shatila camp massacre in 1982. A few years earlier Belgium had passed a law which allowed citizens to indict sitting heads of state for gross human rights violations. All the world’s heads of state, that is, except the Belgian Prime Minister and the Belgian King, because they enjoy immunity from Belgian laws. Which made this law extremely stupid, not to mention a tad hypocritical. But that’s not the point of this paragraph. The point of this paragraph (and I will get to it, I assure you) is that this whole episode was completely misconstrued by both sides, and consequently simultaneously applauded or denounced for the same, wrong, reason. The suit was brought by a citizen, not the government, and thus it did not reflect government policy. But this did not stop the Arab press from lauding Belgium’s brave stand against Israel, and Israel’s press from lamenting another European government’s lurch towards anti-semitism.

As we crossed into Egypt, for example, all the border guards, upon noticing our passports, went out of their way to welcome us especially and let us know that they liked us. Refusing to take credit for something the Belgian government did not do proved quite futile. In Israel, I took great pains to explain the nuances of of the Belgian mess to Israeli friends, but as far as your average mainstream press article or op-ed piece was concerned, it was a clear-cut case of an anti-Israeli policy.

An then, the Belgian court decided it did not have jurisdiction. The Lebanese decided Belgium had caved in to Israeli pressure, and Israel decided Belgium had caved in to Israeli pressure, when all along it was a Belgian court that had caved in to common sense and decided to interpret a stupid law extremely narrowly in order to save Belgium further embarrassment.

But it’s still kind of sad that the only time we Belgians force people to sit up and take notice of our opinions is when they are fabricated by somebody else.

[Tue, Nov 05 2002 – 10:17] Felix (www) (email) I’ve never spent a lot of time in the Court of St James, but it seems to me that there are some things that ambassadors should do, and some things that ambassadors shouldn’t do. Foremost among the things they should do is provide a channel of commnication between two governments. Among the things they shouldn’t do is anything which could fuck up that channel of communication.

Therefore, it seems to me that ambassadors should generally avoid (a) giving interviews to the press — any press, whether scum or not. If the ambassador wants the government to hear his views, he should tell the government, not expect them to read translated interviews in Arab-Israeli newspapers. (b) making any kind of counterfactual public comment. It’s not an ambassador’s job to speculate on what a minister might be called were he to be a minister of another country entirely. Being diplomatic in Israel is hard enough with regard to the situation as it obtains; it benefits no one to try to be diplomatic with regard to the situation as it doesn’t. (c) trying to make points of diplomatic subtlety in a context where only the broadest of meanings is likely to get communicated.

Yes, Stefan, you’re right that the journalist behaved in a way not fully commensurate with the ethics courses taught at Columbia Journalism School. But I think the Belgian ambassador should take some responsibility for being misquoted as well.

P.S. Did the Belgian ambassador really expect the editor of an Arab-Israeli newspaper to conduct an interview in Italian?

[Tue, Nov 05 2002 – 11:44] Matthew (www) (email) second felix on his point about subtlety. in this kind of hothouse political environment, noting that someone would be labeled a fascist by others is effectively the same thing as calling that person a fascist. now, if the ambassador had said, some people would call him a facist but i don’t think that’s accurate and i only told you that fact to point out european attitudes towards some israeli politics, that’s a different matter. but how likely is it that anyone would appreciate that distinction in this political environment–journalistic ethics aside.

here’s a comparison. in al gore’s big foreign policy speech recently, he talked about the “doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration [over Iraq],” adding, “I have not raised those doubts, but many have.”

well, he just did, didn’t he?

[Tue, Nov 05 2002 – 14:12] Stefan (email) Felix, I believe that since last you checked the role of ambassador has undergone quite a democratizing process. Interviews with the press these days are routine; an ambassador has to act as a public spokesman for his government with regards to its policy vis-a-vis the country he is posted in. In Israel this means being accessible both to the mainstream press and the Arab-Israeli press.

The Israeli government protests too much, methinks. Israeli envoys play a much louder game of public pronouncements about the internal affairs of the country where they are accredited. If they believe a political figure to be anti-Semitic they will call him that, publicly. In Belgium, Israel’s ambassador regularly complains to the press that the local Muslim population is having a growing influence on political decisions, and has even posited that Belgium’s political leadership allows itself to be cowed by Muslims.

This may or may not be the case, of course, just as it may or may not be the case that Eitam is a fascist. Yet such statements serve a purpose opposite to the fucking up of communications channels you allude to: They signal lines in the sand beyond which bilateral relations would seriously worsen. If Belgium were to take on a Muslim agenda towards Israel, or if Israel were to enact the policy of “transfer” (unlike ethnic cleansing “transfer” still merits scare quotes), things would seriously head South. It’s not just the government that should know this, but the voting public that elects the politicians.

Another point: Strictly speaking, you could argue that any comment about conditions in the West bank, about Israeli settlers or about “transferring” Palestinians is not a comment about Israel’s internal affairs, but about its foreign policy. But I won’t make this argument until you force me to.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 04:58] eurof (email) Could this all be smoothed over if the Ambassador held a party for everyone and had waiters carrying trays of enormous pyramids of Ferrero Roche chocolates? Presumably his parties are renowned for their good taste.

Felix and Matthew shame on you. The Ambassador was clearly sandbagged by a looney journo with an agenda who was going to have the Ambassador say terrible things about Israel whether he did or not, and the Ambassador has to talk to popular media to explain his country’s position on stuff. That’s presumably what he’s there for, as well as stamping passports and helping drunk Belgians get home. Most journos are either scum or at best froth, and know exceedingly little while pretending to be authorities. It’s a shame we have to rely on them for news. Ones with Opinions, such as the guys assailing the poor Ambassador from both sides, are the worst of all.

Unless I happen to agree with their opinions, of course.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 09:04] Matthew (www) (email) oh, ambassador, you are spoiling us.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 13:13] Charles Kenny (www) (email) “Where I come from, many call that a duck.” In this context, you might be looking at a moor-hen, but you probably aren’t looking at a cat. You’re implying the thing is a duck, or at least is incredibly duck-like. Is this the same thing? This probably depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.

I’d say the defense that (1) the guy *is* a duck and (2) the Israeli ambassador called my friends ducks and this guy is way more duck-like than my friends who, at worst, might be labelled platypi is the better one. Especially if, in the first place, it was known to be likely that all the journalist would understand was “blah, blah, blah, duck, blah, blah, blah.”

But all of this is easy to say in retrospect.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 17:36] Matthew (www) (email) ok, bloggers. why are none of my blogging friends blogging on that little election thing that happened last night? too blogsmacked to type? silenced by incredulity that, gosh, people might actually want to vote republican? opinions, i want them, and i want them now.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 22:54] Felix (www) (email) You want opinions, Matthew? Well, here you go. And you might be surprised to hear that I agree with you: people did want to vote Republican yesterday.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 22:55] Felix (www) (email) You want opinions, Matthew? Well, here you go. And you might be surprised to hear that I agree with you: people did want to vote Republican yesterday.

[Wed, Nov 06 2002 – 22:56] Felix (www) (email) God, that was a mess. Sorry. Here‘s that link again, this time in a format which works…