<< Back 6/19/02 Media contributes to Middle East misunderstandings SMN The real tragedy of the Middle East is the unconscionable misrepresentation that has been adopted in reporting these stories. The big bad Israelis, funded by the U.S. monsters, steamrolling those poor Palestinians who, by the way, strap on bombs, rejoice in Al Qaeda’s successes, reject reasonable offers, and affirm Israel’s right to exist publicly, while quietly giving no indications of seriously acting this way. And now another article (SMN, June 12, “Palestinian Cause Deserves a Listen”) by a well-intentioned group who has chosen to only pay lip service to the complexity of the conflict, all the while pushing their own agenda. I applaud their willingness to go into the fray for their cause, but is their interest truly in exploring nonviolent solutions? Why date this conflict to the Israeli “occupation” on March 29,2002, without addressing the broader events and history that have gotten all parties to where they are? In 1948, the United Nations plan called for a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The Jewish people formed the state of Israel. Why were the Palestinians unable to fulfill their dream? Why did Jordan occupy the West Bank area until 1967, not allowing entry to holy sites by Israelis? Recall the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel on several occasions — in 1948, 1957, 1973. Israel won the West Bank area and Gaza in 1967 and allowed access to everyone. There is no Palestinian state now and there was none then. Israel won this territory in war, a war that took many lives, a war instigated by the Arabs because they could not accept the existence of Israel. This hardly qualifies as an “illegal occupation.” Recall that Jordan kicked the Palestinians out of their country in 1969 because they threatened the government. Is it any wonder the Palestinians were not successful in their quest then because even the Arab world has not been their advocate. It is heartening to now see Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries seriously addressing the needs of their neighbor Palestinians; for whatever reason, now they see it is in their interest to do something about this situation, and that is a positive step. If this motivation involves actual appreciation of all sides and a sincere commitment to finding solutions all can live with, then there is hope. Recall the bold attempts at Oslo and Camp David to find some common ground, reminiscent of Anwar Sadat’s bold attempt with Begin, a Likud party member (as is Ariel Sharon, I might add) to find peace between their countries. And so when we think about the current situation, consider the momentum present when Barak met Arafat in July 2000 at Camp David. Barak made a very bold offer to the Palestinians that evolved in discussions over the ensuing months. Arafat refused this offer. Why? If the Palestinians are in the less powerful position, it would make sense to take what you can get, especially if you get just about everything you want. This is the view of Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton in an article by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard in April 2002. How does he know? He was in the room when Arafat refused. According to the article, the deal evolved to include 97 percent of the West Bank with a land link to Gaza, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as the capital, $30 billion in a compensation fund, but no right to return for refugees. Ross substantiates that the Palestinian negotiators were prepared to accept this as the best deal they could get, but Arafat made further demands which stopped the deal. Mr. Ross’ conclusion is that Arafat just did not want to make a deal. Is it any wonder George Bush Jr. is wary of dealing with Arafat? Also of note, there was no violence from the militant Palestinian groups during this time, lest you think Arafat has no control over his people. Recall in the summer of 2000 Israeli public support was in favor of a peace deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state. But Mr. Ross confirms that by the following February, Arafat initiated another intifada, and when Ariel Sharon, in an ill-advised move, visited the Temple Mount, Arafat did nothing to keep violence from erupting. In the aftermath, we get suicide bombings. If any group in America strapped bombs to teenagers and sent them into public places to blow civilians up, we would be horrified and outraged. In fact, we were when militants hijacked planes and did just this on 9/11! The last gasp of a desperate people? Arafat unable to control his people? Or rather a well-orchestrated plan, employing tactics that willingly sacrifice young people for the cause! And when Israel’s only reasonable conclusion can be that Arafat does not want a deal, and when Arafat now unleashes this violence on civilians, and when Israel decides its only choice is to enforce what Arafat supposedly cannot, and when Israel decides it must take matters into its own hands to try to prevent further violence by going after the militants, we call this “occupation?” Or is it rather self defense, a bold but risky step by a country willing to stand up for itself again, as in 1948, 1957, 1973, a country willing to stand alone against international opinion, much of it ill-informed and with ill intent. Until the Palestinians and Arabs demonstrate that they truly accept the right of Israel to exist, how can we condemn Israel for doing what it can to protect itself? Is it any wonder the U.S. continues to support Israel as it tries to find a way to help solve this mess? For here is the bottom line: if Israel loses its war with the Palestinians and the Arab world, it will cease to exist forever — period. There is nowhere else for them to go. Is that true for all parties involved? You may talk about balance of power, but how about the balance of survival? The shame in all this is that the two sides were so close to a deal in late 2000. Public momentum supported a deal, and now it is lifetimes away. So, of course, the Palestinian cause deserves a look, but so does the Israeli view need consideration. The two are inextricably linked, and until they both realize this and act like it, peace will not come. Demonizing one side does nothing to further the advancement of peace. Biased reporting does nothing to help the American people form an opinion. And right now, it is impossible for any of us to trust the information we are getting . Want some other examples? What about the so-called massacre in Jenin? Now we know there was none, and you don’t hear apologies from the press; they know they blew it. Even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, organizations who clearly have no bias toward Israel, acknowledge this. What about the article in the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram from April 2002, detailing a Palestinian’s proud account of setting booby traps and using women and children to lure Israeli troops into Jenin? What about the affair at the Church of the Nativity? Now we know this was no strong-handed Israeli mission, but rather this was instigated by Palestinian gunmen who stormed the church. A May 13, 2002, article in the Washington Times, written by Sayed Anwar from Bethlehem, chronicles the view of the local Palestinian Christian community, who described these militant Palestinian Moslems as “a criminal gang that preyed especially on Palestinian Christians.” What about the article from the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram about mothers in Gaza hiding their children lest they be confiscated for indoctrination and suicide bombings. Why don’t we hear these stories as well? Why don’t we hear the stories on each side — good and bad — for there are many. Let’s acknowledge mistakes, missed opportunities, Israelis and Palestinians with good intentions, and Israelis and Palestinians with bad intent. But let’s be fair, open-minded and responsible about what we report. Are good Palestinians and good Israelis suffering? You bet. Is it all the fault of Israel and the U.S.? Make up your own mind ... if you can. Good journalism demands substantiation of leads and factual reporting. Now there’s an oxymoron, especially when it comes to reporting the current Middle East conflict. Mark Jaben Waynesville