THE ARREST OF REUTERS JOURNALISTS
[Note by Tom Gross]
Last week, the Israeli army arrested Reuters photographer Suhaib Jadallah Salem in the Gaza Strip, after a hand grenade was found in his car. Last month, a Reuters’ cameraman was arrested in the West Bank, after Israel said he was “directly connected to enemy terrorist activities.”
These incidents raise serious questions about the journalistic integrity of the reports issued by the Reuters news agency, which (with AP) almost every western news outlet relies on for their primary news feed from the Palestinian-controlled territories. The Committee to Protect Journalists, a reporters’ rights organization based in New York, has described the arrests by Israel as an “unacceptable infringement of press freedom”.
Reuters’ own report on the matter, entitled “Israel detains second Reuters journalist,” omits to mention the grenade found in their photographer’s car. I attach that report at the end of this email.
Before that, I attach:
(1) “Why I won’t talk to the BBC” by Douglas Davis. The London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, writing in the British weekly magazine The Spectator, explains why he turned down a request to join a BBC radio debate entitled “Is Israel a morally repugnant society?” (Davis has been a frequent commentator on Middle East affairs for the BBC during the last few years. He is also a subscriber to this email list. The international arm of BBC radio – the world service – has the world’s largest audience of any radio, TV or newspaper network.)
(2) “Jewish woman suspected of aiding Rishon suicide bomber” (Ha’aretz, May 31, 2002). A Jewish immigrant from the former Soviet Union, who is married to a Palestinian, is suspected of aiding the terrorist who committed last Wednesday’s suicide bombing in Rishon Lezion, which killed two people – both Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union – and injured 51.
(3) “Sakharov mural in Moscow vandalized with anti-Semitic comments” (AP, May 31, 2002). Anti-Semitic and obscene slogans have been spray-painted over a mural of the Soviet dissident and Nobel peace laureate Andrei Sakharov, who was not Jewish.
(4) “Syria to take over rotating UN Security Council presidency” (Reuters, May 31, 2002).
(5) “Syria supplying Katyusha rockets directly to Hizbullah” (Ha’aretz, May 31, 2002).
-- Tom Gross
FULL ARTICLES
"WHY I WON'T TALK TO THE BBC"
"Why I won't talk to the BBC"
By Douglas Davis
The Spectator
May 25, 2002
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002
-05-25&id=1892
Would I, asked the BBC researcher who called from Radio Five Live last week, be available to appear on the Nicky Campbell programme the following morning?
'It should be very interesting,' she said, warming to her sales pitch.? 'We want to discuss whether Israel is a morally repugnant society.'?
'Thanks, but no thanks.'
'You sure?' she asked, disbelief mingled with impatience.
'Absolutely positive. Absolutely,' I replied, to avoid any possible confusion.
A moment's silence, then icily, 'OK,' and the line went dead.
The BBC, in my experience, has always been critical of Israel. At times, its coverage has made me feel somewhat queasy; on occasion, I have thought it downright unfair. But, as an Israeli and a journalist, I have defended its right to take a critical view of Israel, even an extremely critical one. After all, no one could accuse the Israeli media of being tame. And besides, I have always subscribed to the cock-up rather than to the conspiracy theory when it came to BBC coverage of the Middle East.
I argued that the Arab-Israeli conflict, anchored in a heady mixture of religious, territorial, political, social, economic and historical issues, presented an eye-crossing challenge to even the reasonably well-informed observer, let alone to the neophyte from London intent on establishing a reputation in one of the world's media hotspots.
All that changed on 11 September. Even as the Twin Towers came crashing down, the BBC was interviewing Arab studio analysts who solemnly intoned that it was racist to assume that Arabs or even Muslims were responsible. More likely, they said, it was Mossad, because such an event 'played into Israeli hands.'
But, even if Arabs and Muslims had flown those planes, they said, was it not obvious that America itself was the real culprit? After all, it was America that was pursuing a pro-Israel foreign policy, dictated by the Jewish lobby; it was America that was ignoring the occupation and turning a blind eye to the settlements; it was America that was contemptuous of Arab sensibilities. Could anyone blame the Arabs for wanting to vent their humiliation, frustration and rage at this one-sided American foreign policy?
Apparently not. At least not at the BBC, which could not get enough of it. As I followed events, I felt increasingly as though the rest of the world – or at least that part of it which was inhabited by the BBC – had gone stark, staring mad. Disbelief, it seemed, was suspended at Television Centre as logic was turned on its head and victim became perpetrator. But far more shocking than the repeated ventilation of these bizarre views was the fact that they went virtually unchallenged by the BBC's usually robust interviewers.
Forget the apparently inconsequential fact that Israel only a few months earlier had offered to disgorge 97 per cent of the West Bank, grant the Palestinians a share in Jerusalem, permit a limited return of the refugees and recognise an independent Palestinian state (which no previous ruler in the area had ever done). Forget all that. In the Newspeak of the BBC, there was a direct, causal link between the attack on America and the occupation of the West Bank.
Did the BBC, which reaches into virtually every British living-room, take a conscious policy decision to allow this arrant nonsense to become an established fact on its airwaves? I doubt it. Rather, I believe that the profound anti-Israel bias – and now I am convinced that it does exist – has, over the years, become ingrained in the BBC's corporate culture. Combine that with a massive dose of anti-Americanism and you have a combustible cocktail.
It is outside the range of my expertise to explain the behaviour of the BBC in this matter. On the face of it, one might have expected a respected British institution to feel a sense of affinity with Israel – a Western, democratic state that shares common values, ideals and aspirations in a region where antidemocratic, despotic and corrupt regimes are the norm.
Perhaps a clinical psychiatrist could offer a cogent explanation of the causes and consequences of the BBC's extraordinary conduct. Or perhaps the answer is far simpler: a reflex reaction of the grown-up, new-Left radicals from the Sixties who now occupy executive positions in the great offices of state.
Could such a collective mindset, permeated with post-colonial guilt, have animated the director-general Greg Dyke to declare that the BBC was 'hideously white'? Could it have animated the Foreign Office minister Peter Hain to advocate, in a previous incarnation, the violent destruction of Israel and label Israelis 'greedy oppressors'?
If there is a disparity between the time given to Arab and Israeli commentators on the BBC, I must take some of the blame. Over the past five years or so, I have been a frequent commentator on Middle East affairs. Since 11 September, however, I have refused all invitations to appear on BBC radio or television. The reason is not that I wish to avoid a debate, but rather that I believe that the BBC has crossed a dangerous threshold.
In my judgment, the volume and intensity of this unchallenged diatribe has now transcended mere criticism of Israel. Hatred is in the air. Wittingly or not, I am convinced that the BBC has become the principal agent for reinfecting British society with the virus of anti-Semitism. And that is a game I am not willing to play, even if, as one BBC researcher recently assured me, my interview fee far exceeded that of my Arab opposite numbers (an outrageously racist point that I, a third-generation refugee and an exile from apartheid South Africa, found difficult to appreciate fully).
I am neither an apologist for the Israeli government nor a defender of its policies. I have been perfectly capable of taking a critical view of Israel when appearing on the BBC, whether it was the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon. And I am not afraid of informed criticism from others. On the contrary, I believe that criticism is essential to the health of the democratic process (although I was always perplexed that Arab guests were treated with a kind of paternalism that never permitted hard questions).
I have a problem with the BBC's propensity to select and spin the news in order to reduce a highly complex conflict to a monochromatic, single-dimensional comic cut-out, whose well-worn script features a relentlessly brutal, demonically evil Ariel Sharon and a plucky, bumbling, misunderstood Yasser Arafat, the benign Father of Palestine in need of a little TLC (plus $50 million a month) from the West.
But it was not just the lamentable standards of journalism. I parted company with the BBC over its hysterical advocacy of the most extreme Palestinian positions; an advocacy that has now transmogrified into a distorting hatred of a criminal Israel and, by extension, into a burgeoning hatred of Jews closer to home.
It is astonishing that little more than half a century after the Holocaust, the BBC, guardian of liberalism and political correctness, should provide the fertile seedbed for the return of 'respectable' anti-Semitism that finds expression not only in the smart salons of London but also, according to the experts who monitor such phenomena, across the entire political spectrum, uniting the far-Left with the Centre and far-Right.
It is astonishing, too, though perhaps no longer so surprising, that the Oxford poet Tom Paulin should continue to star on the BBC Newsnight's Late Review, despite his clarion call, published in the Cairo-based al-Ahram, to kill Jewish settlers. One can only guess at the BBC's reaction if his remarks had been directed at Bradford Asians rather than at Israeli Jews.
I still receive a couple of calls a week from producers and researchers at the BBC, but they should know by now that I am no longer a candidate to make up the numbers in order to allow them to justify the injection of yet more poison into the national bloodstream.
Nor, as Nicky Campbell's researcher so sweetly asked, am I prepared to defend the legitimacy of Israel's existence – and, effectively, the legitimacy of my own existence as an Israeli and as a Jew. To that I say, 'Get stuffed.'
(Douglas Davis is the London correspondent of the Jerusalem Post.)
JEWISH WOMAN SUSPECTED OF AIDING RISHON SUICIDE BOMBER
Jewish woman suspected of aiding Rishon suicide bomber
Ha'aretz
May 31, 2002
A Jewish immigrant from the former Soviet Union is suspected of aiding the terrorist who committed last Wednesday's suicide bombing in Rishon Lezion, which killed two people and injured 51.
On May 23, the day after the attack, the Shin Bet security service arrested Marina Pinsky, 26, who immigrated from Russia 11 years ago, along with her Palestinian husband, Ibrahim Sarahna, 33, of the Deheishe refugee camp near Bethlehem. The gag order on the arrest was lifted only yesterday.
Under interrogation, the two confessed to helping the terrorist, Issa Abed-Raba Badir, and revealed new details about the attack. They said that Ahmed Mugrabi, a senior Tanzim leader who had long been on Israel's wanted list, recruited Sarahna to bring terrorists into Israel, taking advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoys as the husband of an Israeli. Sarahna agreed in the full knowledge that his passengers planned to carry out attacks, but Pinsky said she discovered their purpose only after the fact.
Sarahna told interrogators that there were supposed to be two bombers in the Rishon attack, and he ferried them both from Bethlehem in a stolen car. He said he was the one who suggested Rishon as a good place for the attack, and drew the perpetrators a map of the area to help them.
On the day of the attack, Sarahna and Pinsky dropped 17-year-old Badir off at the site, but the second bomber, Arin Ahmed, 20, got cold feet, so they took her back to Bethlehem instead. Under the original plan, Badir was to blow himself up first, and Ahmed was supposed to wait until the rescue crews arrived to set off her bomb. Pinsky said it was only when Ahmed refused to go through with the attack that she learned what had been planned.
Sarahna also told his interrogators that he hid a second explosive belt, the one Ahmed was to use, in Rishon and showed them where it was.
Pinsky and Sarahna, who maintained residences in both Bat Yam and Deheishe, stayed in the territories overnight and returned to Israel the next day, at which point they were arrested by the Shin Bet, which had been following them. Their infant daughter, who was with them in the Bat Yam mall where the arrest took place, was taken to Sarahna's relatives in Deheishe. The mall was evacuated during the operation, but police told storeowners they were pursuing a woman who had kidnapped a baby.
Sarahna also gave his interrogators many details of the Tanzim organization led by Mugrabi and his brother Ali, both of whom were then arrested last weekend. Mahmoud Sarahna, a relative of Ibrahim's, was also arrested, and told interrogators that he prepared Badir for the attack, even dying his hair blond so he would not look suspicious.
SAKHAROV MURAL IN MOSCOW VANDALIZED WITH ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENTS
Sakharov mural in Moscow vandalized with anti-Semitic comments
The Associated Press
May 31, 2002
Anti-Semitic and obscene slogans were spray-painted over a mural of Soviet dissident and Nobel peace laureate Andrei Sakharov at a Moscow human rights museum, its director said Friday.
The 5-meter (16-foot) wide and 3-meter (10-foot) high mural, in a square outside the Sakharov Museum, was vandalized overnight, director Yuri Samodurov said. "It was very alarming to discover," he said.
He speculated that it could have been damaged by teen-agers or could have been "an order" from the authorities because of the museum's outspoken political views.
The museum carried a large banner demanding an end to the Russian military's war in Chechnya that prompted criticism from city officials. "It is a position that irritates the authorities," he said.
Police were investigating, he said. The mural's artist was to study the damage Saturday to determine whether it can be restored. "If not, we will be forced to take it down," Samodurov said.
Sakharov, a physicist and father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, later became an eloquent critic of the Communist regime and was banished to the city of Nizhny Novgorod in 1979. Released by reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, Sakharov helped spearhead the democracy movement in the waning days of the Communist regime before he died in 1989.
Sakharov's widow, former dissident Yelena Bonner, said on Echo of Moscow radio of the vandalism: "It is very dangerous that many such things can come back in Russia."
SYRIA TO TAKE OVER ROTATING UN SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENCY
Syria to take over rotating UN Security Council presidency
Reuters
May 31, 2002
Syria, which has been using its perch in the Security Council to keep a spotlight on IDF operations against Palestinians, assumes the council's rotating presidency on Saturday for the first time since 1970.
Damascus, which began a two-year term on the 15-nation body in January, will run the council for the month of June before turning it over to Britain on July 1.
The council's only Arab member this year, Syria has used its seat over the past five months to keep the heat on Israel over its army's incursions into West Bank towns after a series of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel.
Its ambassador, Mikhail Wehbe, on behalf of the Palestinians and Arab states, has pushed hard for a string of Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions as war crimes, massacres or atrocities. At times, his proposals were more radical than Palestinians and other Arab diplomats wanted.
Due at least in part to his efforts, the council has approved several resolutions critical of Israel in the past few months, but only after they were extensively rewritten to tone down the language and avoid a veto from the United States, Israel's closest ally.
Regular monthly closed-door briefings on the Middle East, a practice begun at Syria's request, would continue, he said.
Also in line with tradition, Syria's foreign minister, Farouq al-Shara, was expected in New York to lead some council sessions for part of the month, Mekdad said.
The Security Council decisions on international peace and security can be legally binding on all 189 U.N. members.
REPORT: SYRIA SUPPLYING ROCKETS DIRECTLY TO HIZBULLAH
Report: Syria supplying Katyusha rockets directly to Hizbullah
Ha'aretz
May 31, 2002
In recent weeks Syria has been manufacturing and supplying weapons, including Katyusha rockets, directly to the militant Hizbullah organization in southern Lebanon, Channel One television reported Friday evening.
According to the report, the Syrians had been supplying Hizbullah with weapons from Iran, but these weapons did not include long-range Katyusha rockets. In recent weeks, however, Syria has begun supplying Hizbullah with Syrian-made Katyusha rockets with a range of 60-70 kilometers.
The report did not specify the amount of weapons supplied.
Ha'aretz reported in April that Israel believes that Syrian President Bashar Assad has changed his position toward Hizbullah – possibly on the assumption that Israel cannot afford a flare-up in the north.
This was in contrast to Syria's policy following the September 11 attacks in the U.S., when Damascus reined in Hizbullah and changed the weapons transportation routes to the organization so that the weapons no longer traveled through Syria.
Since the IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbullah has operated in the Shaba Farms area on a regular basis.
ISRAEL DETAINS SECOND REUTERS JOURNALIST
Israel detains second Reuters journalist
Reuters
May 23, 2002
Israeli troops have arrested a Reuters photographer, the second Palestinian journalist working for the international news organisation to be held without charge in recent weeks.
Soldiers stopped Suhaib Jadallah Salem, 22, at a checkpoint in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday evening as he was travelling in a Reuters vehicle towards the southern border town of Rafah.
The driver of the vehicle and at least one other passenger travelling in it were also held, witnesses said.
The Israeli army has not given Reuters an official explanation for the arrests. Its spokesmen did not return phone calls on the case on Thursday.
Salem was heading towards Egypt for a flight to join the Reuters team of photographers covering the World Cup in South Korea and Japan.
Palestinian security officials advised journalists last week that Israeli military forces required at least three passengers in vehicles on Gaza's main road to deter lone suicide bombers.
Reuters Editor-in-Chief Geert Linnebank demanded that Israel either release Salem or produce details of evidence against him.
CAMERAMAN HELD
Salem's arrest came as Jussry al-Jamal, a Reuters cameraman, started a fourth week in an Israeli jail.
Jamal, 23, was one of several Palestinian journalists arrested during a military offensive in the West Bank last month. Troops detained him as he filmed outside a hospital.
The legal adviser at Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said in a letter to Reuters on Thursday that Jamal was "directly connected to enemy terrorist activities which have no connection to his job as a journalist" but did not elaborate.
Israeli authorities have not responded to repeated requests from Reuters for evidence to substantiate the allegations.
Shulamit Barnea, the legal adviser in Sharon's office, said she had no more information beyond what was in the letter.
Lawyers have been unable to obtain permission to see Jamal in prison or to communicate with him.
"It is unacceptable that journalists going about their professional duty are arrested and held without charge or access to a lawyer," Linnebank said.
"The longer the detention of Jussry goes on without any evidence being produced or information about his whereabouts given, the stronger the impression becomes that this case has nothing to do with a legitimate investigation but rather is an attempt to intimidate our staff and obstruct the work of the press."
Israel has ignored protests by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a reporters' rights organisation based in New York, and Reporters Without Borders, another international watchdog based in Paris.
The CPJ has described the arrests of Jamal and several other journalists including Hussam Abu Alan, a Palestinian photographer employed by French news agency Agence France Presse, as an "unacceptable infringement of press freedom".
Mistaken identity in suicide bombing
By Steve Weizman
Associated Press Writer
Newsday
June 1, 2002
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-israel-suicide-attack0601jun01.story
Israeli authorities said Saturday that they erroneously identified a woman arrested in a suicide bombing.
The woman in custody is Irena Plitzik, a Ukrainian Christian, not Marina Pinsky, an Israeli Jew, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said.
The confusion stemmed from the fact that Plitzik was carrying a forged identity card in Pinsky's name and that both women have Palestinian husbands by the same name, Ibrahim Sarachne, the office said.
Further, Plitzik's husband, who allegedly drove the bomber to his destination, is cousin to Pinsky's husband, the office said.
Many Israelis were shocked to hear that an Israeli Jew was involved in the May 22 attack, which killed two Israelis and wounded 51 in the city of Rishon Lezion, south of Tel Aviv.
Israeli television said Pinsky alerted authorities to the mistake after seeing her name in Israeli newspapers Friday, a day after authorities wrongly identified the woman in custody.
Israeli authorities say Plitzik's fake I.D. and the Israeli-licensed car, driven by her husband, helped them pass Israeli security checkpoints, allowing them to leave the West Bank and enter Israel. The couple allegedly gave rides to two young Palestinians who planned to carry out a double suicide bombing.
But only one of the bombers, 16-year-old Issa Bdeir, blew himself up. The other, a 20-year-old Palestinian woman identified as Arin Ahmed, backed out.
Plitzik told Israeli interrogators she did not know of the planned bombing in advance, according to previous statements from Sharon's office.
After Israeli security officials interrogated the couple, they swooped on Bethlehem's Dheisheh refugee camp and captured the alleged planners of the bombing, all members of a militant group affiliated to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, according to the prime minister's office.
The group included a militant long sought by Israel, Ahmed Mughrabi, and a man who dyed the hair blond on the 16-year-old attacker so he would look more like an Israeli teen-ager, the statement said. Ahmed, the woman who backed out of the bombing, was also arrested, in Beit Sahour, a village next to Bethlehem.
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT UNRWA
[Note by Tom Gross]
For many years, those who care about liberal democracy have criticized UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency) for (1) directly or indirectly allowing Palestinian terrorists to plan and organize suicide and other murderous attacks from the so-called refugee camps it administers in Gaza and the West Bank, (2) allowing Palestinian children to be taught using schoolbooks with phrases like "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should beware of them."
No one did more to stoke blood libels against Israel during Operation Defensive Shield than UNRWA commissioner general Peter Hansen, who told his UN superiors that Israel had carried out "a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history," that "helicopters [were] strafing civilian residential areas," that "bodies [were] piling up" in "mass graves," and other such lies. Following widespread criticism of UNRWA's role in recent weeks, UNRWA's spokesperson has now responded.
I attach the following:
(1) A letter in the new issue of the American news magazine "The Weekly Standard" from Paul McCann, Chief, Public Information Office of UNRWA, defending his organization's work.
(2) A response by the magazine's editor David Tell, who writes: "Should The Weekly Standard remain a going concern for another hundred years, it is almost inconceivable that we will ever again have occasion to publish anything nearly so dishonest as the letter above."
I would suggest you try and read these first two items. I realize that many of you will not have time to read more, but for those of you who do, I then attach the following:
(3) The original three articles in The Weekly Standard to which UNRWA was responding: David Tell's The U.N.'s Israel Problem (May 6), Charles Krauthammer's Kofi's Choice, and Dov B. Fischer's The Overseers of Jenin (May 13)
(4) A press release pointing out the double standards that the UN applies to (a) Israel and (b) the rest of the world. For example, when it comes to camps in Africa, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, said: "Refugee camps and settlements must be kept free from any military presence or equipment including arms and ammunition" and must not serve as "launching pads for renewed attacks." Apparently this is not the policy when the camps are "launching pads" against the world's only Jewish state.
(5) An article from Ha'aretz, entitled "Lantos calls for probe of UNRWA."
-- Tom Gross
THE UNRWA WRITES TO THE WEEKLY STANDARD
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees writes in
Letters to The Weekly Standard
June 3, 2002 issue
In recent weeks the Weekly Standard has published a number of articles concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). These have contained a large number of serious inaccuracies and misinterpretations. Among these articles were David Tell's The U.N.'s Israel Problem (May 6) and Charles Krauthammer's Kofi's Choice and Dov B. Fischer's The Overseers of Jenin (May 13). Please allow me to set the record straight.
1. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was set up in 1949 to provide humanitarian services to Palestinian refugees who had lost their homes during the war of 1948, pending a political solution to their problem. (Unlike the Jews who fled from Arab countries in the same period – and the Muslims who fled India in 1947--the Palestinian refugees had no state of their own to go to.) This role is quite different from the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is mainly to ensure that states fulfill their obligations to protect refugees and asylum-seekers under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
2. Israel specifically requested that UNRWA continue to play its role in the occupied territory after 1967, and since then has frequently repeated that it considers UNRWA's humanitarian work a major factor for stability in the region. This is because UNRWA, far from keeping the refugees in a state of dependency as your writers have claimed, has given them health and educational indicators that compare very well with those in the region, and have thereby enabled the vast majority to support themselves and their families. UNRWA's micro-finance lending and other similar programs have won awards for helping refugees to help themselves out of poverty.
3. UNRWA does not "wholly fund" or "largely administer" Jenin or any other refugee camp. It simply provides services to refugees, some of whom live in "camps," the majority of whom, in the West Bank, do not. The so-called "camps" are in fact urban ghettos without any clear perimeter or central administration. Enforcement of law and order in them is the responsibility of the civil power – which, in the West Bank and Gaza between 1967 and 1994, was the Israeli government. In the latter year, under the Oslo accords, the camps in "Area A" (including Jenin) were transferred to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
4. Likewise, it is the civil power that approves the textbooks and curriculum used in schools, including those run by UNRWA. Under the Israeli administration, the textbooks were old Jordanian ones, dating from before 1967. Since 1994, the PA has been replacing these with new ones which, according to a study by Prof. Nathan Brown of the George Washington University, published in November 2001, "make no mention of any location as Palestine outside the territories occupied by Israel in 1967," and "go to some lengths to avoid saying anything about Israel at all," the few exceptions being "hardly pejorative." Israeli academics have confirmed Prof. Brown's findings, and the Israeli representative to the United Nations has praised UNRWA's own initiatives towards promoting tolerance and non-violent conflict resolution in its schools.
5. UNRWA is scrupulous about protecting its installations against misuse by any person or group. Only once, in Lebanon in 1982, has there been credible evidence of such misuse by Palestinians, and it was promptly dealt with. Since then the Israeli authorities have made no specific allegations about abuse of UNRWA facilities. Nor have they lodged any complaint with UNRWA about the official or private activities of any UNRWA staff member – though they have arrested hundreds of them, and in each case UNRWA immediately writes asking for information about the grounds for the arrest.
6. UNRWA employees stand for election to the staff union on their own merits (not on political slates), and UNRWA strictly enforces the rules which oblige employees to behave with integrity and impartiality in their official functions.
7. UNRWA has never hired buses to take refugees on tours of Israel.
8. The Weekly Standard's characterization of Peter Hansen, UNRWA's Commissioner General as an anti-Semitic "peasant-in-chief" is pure slander and an insult to the intelligence of the magazine's readership. When Hansen spoke about bodies "piling up," he was referring to overflowing morgues he had seen with his own eyes. The mass graves he described were created outside Ramallah Hospital by medical staff and were filmed by the international media, as were the IDF helicopter attacks on Jenin camp and other civilian areas. Peter Hansen's honest, humanitarian response to questions from an interviewer hardly merits the character assassination to which The Weekly Standard has stooped.
Paul McCann
Chief, Public Information Office
UNRWA Headquarters Gaza
DAVID TELL RESPONDS:
Should The Weekly Standard remain a going concern for another hundred years, it is almost inconceivable that we will ever again have occasion to publish anything nearly so dishonest as the letter above.
With his first two complaints – directed against Dov B. Fischer's capsule history of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency ("The Overseers of Jenin," May 13) – that organization's top spokesman establishes a position too patently absurd to waste much ink on. UNRWA, he writes, cannot be held to the slightest degree responsible for the immiseration of those Palestinian refugees it has housed, fed, taught, doctored, and employed for the past 53 years. This, no less, because Palestinian refugees, flush with UNRWA's award-winning "micro-financing lending" and whatnot, aren't actually miserable at all. It's quite possible that Mr. McCann is the only human being on Earth who even pretends to believe such a thing; graphic evidence of abject squalor in UNRWA installations has been a regular feature of international television broadcasts for decades, after all. At very least, McCann's claim should prove surprising news indeed to his colleagues in UNRWA's Department of External Relations, which is at this very moment conducting a "Fourth Emergency Appeal" for donations – on grounds that West Bank and Gaza refugees face a "stark and uncertain future," fully half of them having fallen into poverty.
Mr. McCann next turns his attention to my own recent editorial charging, among other things, that UNRWA must be considered complicit in Palestinian terrorism launched from within its compounds ("The U.N.'s Israel Obsession," May 6). That a U.N. official should decline to acknowledge the existence of such terrorism is unremarkable. That UNRWA should effectively deny the existence of its own refugee camps, however, is something else altogether. His agency neither funds, administers, nor exercises police authority in "Jenin or any other refugee camp," McCann insists. Instead, UNRWA merely extends "services" to Palestinians who live in "urban ghettos without any clear perimeter or central administration."
Here again, Mr. McCann has conveniently ignored what UNRWA itself, in every other circumstance, routinely describes as its mission. These purportedly indistinct neighborhoods McCann now airily dismisses as "so-called 'camps'" are called precisely that on UNRWA's website, for example: "official camps" and "recognized refugee camps," each of which the agency specifically identifies down to the exact number of quarter-acre section dunums it comprises. A "camp," according to the "working definition" McCann's front-office superiors have formally adopted and publicized, "is a plot of land placed at the disposal of UNRWA by the host government for accommodating Palestine refugees and for setting up facilities to cater to their needs."
True enough, the provisioning of hooligans to impose "law and order" on the streets of its camps is no longer among the catering services UNRWA offers; Palestinian Authority "policemen," whose salaries the agency previously paid, now perform their lynchings on someone else's dime. But it is also true, such technicalities aside, that a series of Security Council resolutions still in force oblige relevant U.N. representatives to take "appropriate steps to help create a secure environment" in all "situations where refugees [are]... vulnerable to infiltration by armed elements." Mr. McCann's letter explicitly defies this mandate. Only when the "armed elements" in question are Israeli, it would seem, does UNRWA become energetically "scrupulous" about protecting "its installations" from taint by violence.
McCann's account of the history of Palestinian schoolbook publishing is a farce. Israel's U.N. ambassador will no doubt be astonished to find his name invoked on its behalf. Professor Nathan Brown, on the other hand, clearly intends that his November 2001 "study" be put to such use; those passages in the document to which McCann here refers neatly complement the standard apologetics issued by Yasser Arafat's Ministry of Education. Trouble is, though they have concealed by omission all the genuinely essential facts of the case, neither the Palestinian Authority nor Professor Brown nor Mr. McCann has ever bothered to dispute those facts. Which are as follows:
From 1969 through most of 1995, while West Bank and Gaza schools were being administered by Israel, teachers and students employed Jordanian (and Egyptian) curricular material that had been cleansed of inflammatory political and racial content under a system sponsored by UNESCO. In October 1995, following the transfer of educational responsibilities required by the Oslo accords, UNESCO abrogated this system at the request of the Arab League, and the Palestinian Authority then immediately restored unexpurgated versions of the Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks to its classrooms. It is beyond serious dispute that these books, still widely in use, are violently anti-Semitic and shot-through with exhortations to "martyrdom" in the war against "Zionist oppression." For that matter, Prof. Nathan Brown to the contrary notwithstanding, it is beyond serious dispute that the newer, PA-commissioned textbooks gradually being introduced in UNRWA schools are... violently anti-Semitic and shot-through with exhortations to "martyrdom" in the war against "Zionist oppression" – as UNWRA has itself previously admitted.
In 1998, directed to do so by Rep. Peter Deutsch and other concerned congressional appropriators, the U.S. State Department formally requested that UNRWA conduct an internal investigation of allegations that PA-generated curricular materials were infected with hatred of Jews. In response, UNRWA tried mightily to whitewash the problem. One of the books in question, for instance, turned out to include such evocative lessons as this: "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should beware of them"; UNRWA's researchers advised the State Department that the phrase could not fairly be considered offensive because it described actual "historical events." Nevertheless, certain aspects of the Palestinian curriculum proved too much even for U.N. functionaries to swallow. In January 1999, the State Department reported to Congress that "UNRWA's review did reveal instances of anti-Semitic characterizations and content in these host-authority texts."
The PA's education ministry, incidentally, freely acknowledges that it "has not mentioned Israel borders on maps" in those texts. The books have never been revised or withdrawn. And various reports posted on UNRWA's website boast about the fact that "UNRWA staff participated in the design and development of the Palestinian curriculum."
More than a thousand Israelis are dead as a consequence of hundreds of terrorist attacks originating in UNRWA refugee camps since 1982, but still Paul McCann has the gall to contend that not once in that 20-year period has there been "credible evidence" that Palestinians have "misused" his agency's facilities. Operation Defensive Shield, the Israeli army's most recent anti-terrorist sweep through those facilities, has just produced an enormous cache of hard evidence that UNRWA refugee camps are riddled with small-arms factories, explosives laboratories, and suicide-bombing cells. Prime Minister Sharon's office has just in the past few weeks asked the U.N. to "break the bond of silence regarding the misuse of the refugee camps," and Israel's U.N. ambassador has pleaded for the General Assembly, at minimum, to repudiate "the use of a U.N.-administered camp as a center for terrorist activity." But still Paul McCann is unimpressed. He has yet to see any sufficiently "specific allegations."
I have no idea what information appears on the printed ballots used in leadership elections for UNRWA's employees unions. But news accounts of those elections dating back at least 10 years – in both the local Arabic press and the international media – report the results exclusively in terms of political affiliation: this many seats for Hamas, that many for Islamic Jihad, and so forth. It cannot be a secret to UNRWA headquarters that many of its staff members are sympathizers or actual members of terrorist organizations. They are hardly shy about it. Last July, in the presence of dozens of journalists, the junior high school in UNRWA's Jabalya refugee camp hosted an open-air conference at which Hamas spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin urged hundreds of students to martyrdom – only to be followed on stage by one Saheil Alhinadi, officially representing UNRWA's teachers' union, who led the crowd in a hymn of praise to suicide bombers.
"UNRWA has never hired buses to take refugees on tours of Israel," Mr. McCann tells us. I'm not sure what this business about who "hired" the buses is supposed to prove. What it cannot disprove, in any case, is the point I was trying to make by mentioning the phenomenon in the first place: that UNRWA actively and unapologetically abets and sustains the basic engine of Palestinian terrorism, the irredentist fantasy that refugee-camp residents will someday realize their "right of return" to property within Israel long ago "stolen" by "the Jews." Every year, during the May anniversary of Al-Nakba, what the Palestinians call the "disaster" of Israel's Independence Day, UNRWA-financed projects like the Union of Youth Activities Centers sponsor gigantic "right of return" rallies throughout the West Bank and Gaza. From which rallies, the state of the intifada permitting, buses then take refugees on tours of "their" Israeli villages. A first-person diary of one such trip is prominently featured on the Dheisheh refugee camp website. News footage of another such trip has been broadcast by the BBC World Service. Yet another such trip has been recorded for posterity in a video documentary nominated for one of this year's Academy Awards. Paul McCann protests too little.
A final word about Mr. McCann's boss, UNRWA commissioner-general Peter Hansen. No man has done more to circulate lurid fictions about an Israeli mass murder of unarmed civilians in the West Bank's Jenin refugee camp – or done it with greater relish – than Peter Hansen. As Paul McCann reminds us, Hansen once spoke of bodies "piling up" in Ramallah Hospital, site of an entirely separate, and equally fanciful, Israeli "atrocity." But Hansen has otherwise devoted the bulk of his imaginative energies to Jenin. The official transcript admits of no other interpretation: His reference to "incidences of mass graves," during an April 5 teleconference from UNRWA's Jerusalem office, involved not Ramallah but Jenin. Ditto for Hansen's report, to the Reuters news agency, that "armed activists who were there obviously slipped away before the Israelis moved in – so the exercise of force was mainly vis-a-vis the civilian population." Ditto for Hansen's April 7 announcement that "helicopters are strafing civilian areas," something that simply never happened, though McCann now bizarrely suggests there is film of it.
Claiming to have "seen the reality with my own eyes," Peter Hansen, speaking for the United Nations, has called it "no exaggeration" that a "massacre was carried out" against the civilian population of Jenin by the state of Israel. There is nothing "honest" or "humanitarian" about this accusation. It is a lie – a lie which, though long since thoroughly debunked, the dishonorable Peter Hansen and his dishonorable agency obstinately refuse to recant.
"MAYBE THE UN PICKS ON ISRAEL SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAN"
The U.N.'s Israel Obsession
By David Tell,
The Weekly Standard
May 6, 2002
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/186drluv.asp
In 1948, when the armies of five surrounding Arab dictatorships invaded tiny, newborn Israel – in what the secretary general of the Arab League announced was a "war of extermination" against "the Jews" – the United Nations sat on its ass. And did not send a fact-finding mission.
But, oh, how the U.N. has been making up for that oversight ever since. For more than 50 years now, the Jews have been its favorite subject.
Among the nearly 200 nations represented at the U.N., only Israel has ever been assigned special – reduced – membership privileges, its ambassadors formally barred, for 53 straight years ending only recently, from election to the Security Council. Meanwhile, and right up to the present day, that same Security Council has devoted fully a third of its energy and criticism to the policies of a single country: Israel. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which regularly – and unreprovingly – accepts delegations from any number of homicidal tyrannies across the globe, has issued fully a quarter of its official condemnations to a single (democratic) country: Israel.
There has been a genocide in Rwanda, an ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, periodic and horrifying communal "strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, a decades-long and culturally devastating occupation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China... but none of those U.N. member states has ever been subjected to the rebuke of a General Assembly "emergency special session." Israel has, though, repeatedly, simply for refusing to surrender in the face of terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds and injured thousands of its citizens – murders that no U.N. resolution has ever so much as mentioned.
No fewer than four separate administrative units within the U.N. – two of them directly supervised by Kofi Annan's governing secretariat – do nothing but spend millions of dollars annually on the production and worldwide distribution of propaganda questioning Israel's right to exist. The "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories," for example, "investigates" Israel's continued "practice" of "occupying" not just the territory taken in the 1967 war, but also the land within its internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders.
And then there is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an operation originally established in December 1949 to assist those Palestinian refugees created by the Arab world's botched attempt at a second Final Solution. UNRWA, as it happens, is centrally relevant to its parent organization's latest outburst of naked Israelophobia. Because UNRWA wholly funds and largely administers the West Bank refugee camp in Jenin where the Israeli army is purported – by various Palestinian militants and local U.N. officials – to have just perpetrated a "massacre" of "unarmed civilians." It is to the site of this alleged "atrocity" that Kofi Annan now intends to dispatch a commission of inquiry chaired by Yasser Arafat's favorite European diplomat, former president Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, and seconded by Cornelio Sommaruga, retired chief of the International Red Cross, a man who once likened the Star of David to a swastika.
All by themselves, Annan's personnel choices here are a genuine scandal, and as this issue of The Weekly Standard goes to press, Israel's understandable objections, to Sommaruga in particular, have left it a still open question when and whether the secretary general's designees will ever be allowed to reach their destination. And if, at the end of the day, they aren't? That will be perfect justice, we think. The "world community" will howl, of course, and Israel's many enemies will believe the worst. But they believe the worst already. And they will continue to believe the worst no matter what. And, quite apart from the controversy over what its staff should look like, the whole idea of a U.N. fact-finding mission to Jenin is scandalous to begin with, it seems to us – an assault on Israel's honor, even its basic legitimacy as an independent nation, that no similarly situated democracy would ever be expected to endure.
Assuming Annan's investigators do eventually make their way to Jenin, is it possible they might actually find the "facts" they are looking for? No, almost certainly not. Media accounts of Israel's incursion into a football-field-sized sector of the camp have bubbled over with lurid details worthy of a medieval peasant's worst anti-Semitic fantasies. And the peasant-in-chief has been a U.N. official, UNRWA commissioner general Peter Hansen, who has given dozens of lip-smacking interviews recounting "wholesale obliteration," "a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history," "helicopters... strafing civilian residential areas," and "bodies... piling up" in "mass graves." Some of this carnage Hansen even claims to have seen "with my own eyes." But he is a bald-faced liar. The Israelis have been out of Jenin – and foreign journalists and other international observers have been back in – for more than a week. And no evidence, literally nothing that would indicate the presence of a civilian "massacre," has yet emerged.
Quite the contrary, rescue workers in Jenin have so far recovered the bodies of six – not the rumored six hundred, but six – women, children, and elderly Palestinians. This, in a now ruined central area of the camp where countless armed gunmen rained days of nonstop sniper fire on Israeli foot patrols from the windows of still-occupied residences they had booby-trapped with high explosives. This is a "massacre"?
And why, even if its death toll had proved a hundred times higher, would it warrant a U.N. fact-finding mission? In 1993, just after the events lately made famous by Hollywood's "Black Hawk Down," a two-week U.S. bombing campaign against Mogadishu killed a thousand Somali civilians. During the whole of the present intifada, now six months old, far fewer Palestinians than that have died as Israel has attempted to rescue itself from a national security threat far graver and more immediate than any America faced in East Africa. But did it ever occur to the United Nations to convene an inquest into the "human catastrophe" that was Somalia? It did not.
Maybe the U.N. picks on Israel simply because it can. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a darker impulse at play.
Which would explain why the U.N. has spent decades, in the guise of refugee assistance, providing active, organized, and enthusiastic auxiliary services to the most delusional and violent strains of Jew-hating Palestinian irredentism. It bears mentioning, though one rarely hears it mentioned, that the UNRWA camp at Jenin has been for years what the Palestinians call a'simat al-istashidin, the "suiciders' capital," from which dozens of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al Aksa, and Tanzim terrorist attacks have been launched, killing hundreds of Israelis.
UNRWA funds and staffs the schools of Jenin, where, from fall through spring each year, children are taught that all of "Palestine," from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to them. During summer vacation, those very same schools host training camps in which those very same students are instructed in the arts of kidnapping and rock-throwing and bomb-manufacturing and martyrdom. UNRWA rents the buses that regularly take residents of Jenin on tours of the Israeli countryside – where "their" property, "stolen" by the Jews, is carefully pointed out. UNRWA allows its food warehouses in Jenin to do double duty as munitions dumps. UNRWA pretends not to know that explosives and counterfeit currency factories are housed in the public shelters it has constructed in Jenin. UNRWA cannot understand how it might be that its own administrative offices in Jenin are festooned with graffiti celebrating some of the world's most notorious terrorist organizations. Or how some of the world's most notorious terrorists might have found their way onto the agency's payroll – to the point where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, extreme even in the context of Palestinian extremism, now openly controls the UNRWA workers' union.
This same United Nations, the blood of Israeli civilians still wet on its hands, now dares to question the morality of a modest, defensive, and long-overdue Israeli reprisal?
In curricular materials published by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Education, "Objective Five" for high school history teachers reads as follows: "The student will understand why the people of the world hate the Jews." It is a question for the ages. Zionism may no longer be racism at the United Nations. But anti-Semitism is forever.
"If WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SHIELD OF DAVID, WHY WOULD WE NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SWASTIKA?"
Kofi's choice
The U.N. secretary general gets entangled in l'Affaire Sommaruga.
By Charles Krauthammer
The Weekly Standard
May 13, 2002
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/211pkvec.asp
Kofi Annan has a problem. In his eagerness to nail Israel for the "Jenin massacre," the U.N. secretary general named an investigating committee of three, including one Cornelio Sommaruga, former head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
This was unfortunate for Annan, despite the fact that the committee was disbanded within days (a combination of Israel's insistence on conditions of fairness and emerging evidence that the entire massacre story was a fiction). In choosing Sommaruga, out of an entire universe of people who could have brought probity and impartiality to the investigation, Annan chose a man with a past.
The incident occurred in November 1999 in Geneva. Dr. Bernadine Healy, then head of the American Red Cross, had made a passionate speech questioning the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for having denied entry to Israel for 50 years. Sommaruga confronted her in a private meeting shortly thereafter. Eyes bulging and furious, Sommaruga said to her, "If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"
I first cited this incident in a column two years ago ("Red Cross Snub," Washington Post, March 24, 2000). Now that it has come back to haunt Sommaruga and Annan, they have gone into high damage control. The result is a train wreck.
Edward Mortimer, Annan's director of communications, claims (Washington Post, April 29) that this statement was taken out of context. His witness is one Alan Baker, an Israeli diplomat. Nice touch. Baker, he says, "was present during this conversation." Mortimer then quotes the Jerusalem Post quoting Baker, calling any casting of aspersions on Sommaruga "a vile manipulation of something said in a different context."
I checked the statement that Baker made to the Jerusalem Post. It reads: "I know the context because I was there. When we were talking about adding additional emblems in the Red Cross movement, Sommaruga remembered that the old historic Indian symbol of the swastika, before it was used by the Nazis, was proposed as a humanitarian red cross symbol."
This is a howler. First, Baker was never at the meeting. I verified this with Bernadine Healy, who was. Her notes confirm her recollection, as does the colleague who was in the room with her during the meeting.
Second, it is obvious that Baker was not at the meeting because his account contradicts the account given by the very person he is trying to defend – Cornelio Sommaruga. On the same page of the Washington Post that carries Mortimer's letter, there appears a letter from Sommaruga claiming that what he said to Dr. Healy was: "Would you be ready to accept the swastika as requested by Sri Lanka?"
The defendants cannot seem to get their stories straight. Baker said it was a discussion of pre-Nazi Indian religious symbols. Sommaruga says he was talking about Sri Lanka, a country that did not even come into existence until Nazism had been dead for three years, and did not change its name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka until 1972. So which is it, gentlemen?
This contradiction caused a problem for Annan's flack, Mr. Mortimer. So what does he do when Sommaruga says postwar Sri Lanka and Baker says prewar India? He does a beautiful East River straddle, offering his own compromise version – "a conversation Mr. Sommaruga had with Bernadine Healy... in 1999, when he asked her rhetorically whether she would be ready to accept a red swastika, which had been requested by an Asian country...."
"Asian." Clever.
Third, the "context" alleged by Mortimer, Baker, and a previous defense of Sommaruga by Urs Boegli, ICRC head of media services (letter to the Washington Post, April 2, 2000), is pure invention. Baker, for example, says: "When we were talking about adding additional emblems in the Red Cross movement, Sommaruga remembered... the old historic Indian symbol of the swastika."
Nonsense. As Dr. Healy wrote the Washington Post (April 5, 2000), "Mr. Sommaruga's statement was... in essence, if Israel's humanitarian organization, Magen David Adom, was allowed to use the red shield of David as its symbol, what was to stop someone from using the swastika? Sadly, his statement was made without context. Only after I expressed my astonishment did he invoke an example of a country that might wish to use such a symbol (SriLanka...)."
Healy was so astonished by this statement that she asked the ICRC to tell her when Sri Lanka had asked to use the swastika. She was told vaguely that perhaps it had occurred sometime in the 1950s, but no documentation was produced.
In any case, you don't just front up to the ICRC window and ask for admission of your symbol. You have to show that the symbol has already been in humanitarian use. Palestinian Jews had been using the red Star of David for years even before the state of Israel came into existence. Did Sri Lankan ambulances sport the swastika?
In fact, the only country to use the swastika in its Red Cross emblem was Nazi Germany. Its (internal) humanitarian emblem was the black eagle with the swastika over its heart, and its talons clutching the Red Cross below.
The very idea of comparing the Star of David to the swastika is grotesque. The fact that Sommaruga blurted this out in a non-public setting is telling. It is precisely because it is telling that assorted public relations artists for him and for Annan are now running around trying to paper things over.
But surely they can do a better job. They would do better to meet in committee and coordinate their stories before spinning tales about swastikas--in context, of course.
(Charles Krauthammer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.)
"WHY IS THE UN RUNNING REFUGEE CAMPS FOR PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE LIVING IN THEIR OWN LAND?"
The overseers of Jenin
What exactly is the U.N. doing in its refugee camps (with our money)?
By Dov B. Fischer
The Weekly Standard
May 13, 2002
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/213cgjov.asp
Among the main Mideast developments at this writing, it now appears that a United Nations commission will not be traveling to Jenin, but Yasser Arafat will be. The purpose of Arafat's Jenin visit is to draw public sympathy for residents of the United Nations refugee camp there, where fierce fighting occurred several weeks ago. For Americans, perhaps our attention should focus more on underlying questions: Why is the United Nations running refugee camps for people who claim to be living in their own land? How could a refugee camp under U.N. auspices become a world center for recruiting and training suicide bombers? And why is the United States essentially bankrolling these camps when wealthy Arab oil sheikhdoms barely contribute?
According to U.N. records, the United States finances more than one-fourth of the cost of operating the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In 2000, for example, the United States pledged $89,560,000 towards the $337,014,742 total that UNRWA raised from all nations and sources in the world. By comparison, Saudi Arabia pledged $2,500,000 – less than 1 percent of the UNRWA total and a minuscule fraction of the American contribution. Oil-rich Kuwait pledged $2 million. Syria pledged $37,209. Egypt pledged $10,000. Iraq and Libya apparently had difficult years; they pledged nothing, although Iraq sends bounties of $25,000 each to the families of suicide bombers.
The UNRWA is a subsidiary of the United Nations. Its commissioner-general, appointed by the U.N. secretary general, is the only head of a United Nations body authorized to report directly to the General Assembly. The UNRWA was founded by Resolution 302(IV) of December 8, 1949, and to this day remains unique within the world body as a relief agency assigned to serve only one class of people. All the world's other refugees are served by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). UNHCR serves the needs of more than 21.8 million refugees in 120 countries ranging from the Balkans, Colombia, West Africa, and Chechnya to Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Timor, and the Horn of Africa. Palestinian Arabs alone are under the aegis of the UNRWA.
Locally recruited "Palestinian refugees" make up 99 percent of UNRWA's staff in the 59 refugee camps that UNRWA operates in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the disputed territories that Israelis call "Judea and Samaria" and that the Arab world calls "the West Bank." The majority of UNRWA camps and nearly 60 percent of their residents are in the three Arab countries, the remainder in the areas administered by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. According to the UNRWA, it is the main provider of basic social services in all those camps.
The UNRWA's largest budget item is its school system, comprising half its budget and two-thirds of its staff. In all, the UNRWA operates 266 schools with 242,000 students in the area administered by the Palestinian Authority. In the aftermath of Israel's military incursion into the UNRWA refugee camp in Jenin, that agency has been under a microscope, partly because it has schooled four generations of Jenin children. According to the UNRWA, its schools use the same curricula and textbooks as do the host government schools. Palestinian Authority textbooks incorporate maps of the Middle East that omit Israel, and their texts delegitimize Israel, Judaism, and Jews.
Under the UNRWA's auspices, the number of refugees it serves has grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 3.8 million today. Thus, the overwhelming majority of its population are the children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of those who first were placed in UNRWA camps in 1950. Between 1947 and 1950, approximately 750,000 Jewish refugees were driven from Arab countries in the Middle East. There was no United Nations agency to serve their health, educational, and social needs. So they were absorbed directly into the Israeli polity, and their offspring bear no indicia of refugee status. For example, the president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, is the child of Iranian Jewish refugees from that time.
Israel reports that approximately half the suicide bombers who have struck over the past 19 months were residents of the Jenin UNRWA camp or terrorists who were trained there. It also is odd that a "refugee camp" under United Nations auspices has emerged as a terror center where Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists ran wild, stocking arms, building bomb-making factories, and recruiting and training children educated at UNRWA schools to detonate themselves. Perhaps oddest of all is the American role as chief bankroller.
With Washington now scouring its outlays in the face of projected budget deficits, it is remarkable that America continues to pump scores of millions into a U.N. program that has institutionalized dependency among four generations of Arabs – while the oil princes barely contribute. It is remarkable, too, that the refugees and their descendants are still living in squalor half a century after the helping hand first was extended.
This makes no sense. In a time when U.N. fact-finding commissions are all the rage, here is a subject for congressional fact-finders to investigate: Why are we throwing away all those tax dollars?
(Dov B. Fischer is an attorney in Los Angeles.)
AIPAC FACTS: UNRWA CAMPS USED AS TERRORIST STRONGHOLDS
UNRWA's temporary mission has long been ignored by the U.N. and Arab states.
By AIPAC
May 21, 2002
* Originally envisaged as a temporary organization, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) began operation in 1950. Today, UNRWA operates 27 refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, home to more than 3.7 million Palestinians (Wall Street Journal, 4-18-02 and UNRWA). In a November 1951 report, UNRWA director John Blandford Jr. said he expected Arab governments to assume responsibility for relief operations by July 1952.
* As Ralph Garroway, a former UNRWA director, explained in August 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die." (Jerusalem Post, 4-18-02)
U.N.-run camps are now primary bases for known terrorist groups.
* UNRWA camps have become the main operating centers for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP, terrorist groups responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israelis and the injuring of thousands. Twenty-three suicide bombers, responsible for killing 57 Israelis and injuring 1,000, came from the UNRWA camp in Jenin alone.
* While UNRWA is responsible for all aspects of the administration of the camps, the U.N. has ceded control to the terrorist elements operating within them. As former Ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsburg explains, "The refugee camps indeed are not policed by anyone but the Palestinian Authority, with the United Nations Relief and Works Administration personnel administering the lion's share of the programs. But other organizations, including extremist Islamic organizations, operate freely in the camps." (Fox News 5-1-02)
* Israel, during recent searches of UNRWA camps, has uncovered illegal arms caches, bomb factories and a plant manufacturing the new Qassam-2 rocket, designed to reach Israeli population (Wall Street Journal, 4-18-02)
UNWRA runs schools that teach hatred toward Israel.
* UNRWA operates one of the largest school systems in the Middle East, with 266 schools and 242,000 students. The system comprises half its budget and two-thirds of its staff (Weekly Standard, 5-13-02) UNRWA uses and funds textbooks that incorporate maps of the Middle East that omit Israel and that delegitimize Israel, Judaism and Jews. (Weekly Standard, 5-13-02)
* U.N. abdicates its responsibility to act against terrorism. Several U.N. Resolutions and other documents reiterate the need to ensure that UNRWA camps do not become armed fortresses for terrorist entities. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking about camps in Africa, said: "Refugee camps and settlements must be kept free from any military presence or equipment including arms and ammunition" and must not serve as "launching pads for renewed attacks." (U.N. Document A/52/871, April 1998)
* In a speech given July 6, 2001, UNRWA representative Saheil Alhinadi praised Hamas suicide attacks, saying: "The road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen, and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies (Israeli Government Special Report, http://www.pmo.gov.il/english/nave/violence-5.html)
The United States funds 30 percent of UNRWA budget.
* In recent years, the United States has provided 30 percent of the UNRWA budget, while Saudi Arabia has given less than one percent, Syria just $37,209 and Egypt only $10,000. Meanwhile, countries like Iraq and Libya give no money to UNRWA. Instead, Iraq sends bounties of $25,000 to families of suicide bombers (Weekly Standard, 5-13-02).
LANTOS CALLS FOR PROBE OF UNRWA
Lantos calls for probe of UNRWA
By Shlomo Shamir
Ha'aretz
May 23, 2002
The ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, has asked UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to conduct a formal probe into the operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency in the territories prior to the June 30 scheduled renewal of its mandate.
"My concern is that, for too long, UNRWA has been part of the problem, rather than the solution, in the Middle East," Lantos wrote in a May 13 letter to Annan. "However initially well-intentioned, UNRWA camps have fostered a culture of anger and dependency that undermines both regional peace and the wellbeing of the camps' inhabitants."
The California congressman expressed his concern "that UNRWA officials have not only failed to prevent their camps from becoming centers of terrorist activity, but have also failed to report these developments to you."
Lantos concluded that "it is difficult to escape the painful conclusion that UNRWA, directly or indirectly, is complicit in terrorism."
YASSER ARAFAT CHEESE SNACKS THE NEW HIT FOOD SNACK IN EGYPT
[Note by Tom Gross]
I attach several news items (some have been edited for space reasons).
(1) A one and a half-year old baby girl was among the victims of today's Petah Tikva suicide bomb. The bomb was deliberately targeted against children at an ice cream parlor. Several of the 53 injured are infants; some suffered critical head wounds from the 10-kilogram bomb, which was packed with screws and nails so as to maximize injuries. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO, claimed responsibility for the attack. (Jerusalem Post)
(2) Russian woman severely wounded in explosion while removing sign reading "Death to Jews" (Associated Press)
(3) "NASA fears attack on shuttle carrying Israeli astronaut." (Ha'aretz) Apparently, Israelis are not safe outside Planet Earth either.
(4) Adam Shapiro, the American Jew who defended Yasser Arafat during Israel's recent incursion in Ramallah following the Passover suicide bombing, and who reportedly called the Israeli people "Nazis," married a Palestinian activist in a Detroit church on Sunday. (Jerusalem Post)
(5) Five Israeli soldiers have been sent to prison for looting and vandalizing Palestinian property during the April offensive against Palestinian terrorists. (Associated Press)
(6) Prominent Schindler's list survivor dies. (Jerusalem Post)
(7) Polanski's Holocaust film wins Palme d'Or at Cannes. (News Agencies)
(8) Swedes, Belgians told not to vote for Israel in Eurovision. (Ha'aretz)
(9) European Jews to rally today against EU in Brussels. (Ha'aretz)
(10) Yasser Arafat cheese puffs are new hit food snack in Egypt. "The more you buy, the more you build," says the slogan on the bag. (Reuters)
-- Tom Gross
Two dead, 49 wounded in Petah Tikva suicide bombing
By Mayaan Jaffe and David Bender
The Jerusalem Post
May 27, 2002
A suicide bomber blew up at 6:50 PM in the central shopping center in Petach Tikvah, east of Tel Aviv. Two people were killed in the blast, and 53 were wounded. The two casualties, a woman, and a 1.5-year-old toddler, died in hospital after the attack.
In addition, 49 people are wounded, eight of them seriously, according to Sharon District Police Chief Aharon Franco, speaking on Israel Television Channel 1. Several of the wounded are infants. Dozens of the victims have been evacuated to area hospitals suffering from injury and shock.
The 10-kilogram bomb was filled with screws and nails in order to increase the lethality of the blast. Franco said police are searching Petah Tikva and the rest of the Sharon area for more terrorists or accomplices. Two terrorists were to have carried out simultaneous attacks, according to information received by security sources.
Fatah-Tanzim al Aksa Brigades, a branch Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, took responsibility for the attack, according to Hizbullah's al Manar Television in Lebanon.
"I was standing near the taxi stand. We heard a huge explosion," an eyewitness who gave his name as Haim told Israel Radio, describing the blast. "We are talking about children and babies who were sitting with their parents at the cafe near the supermarket." The bomber shot a security guard before blowing himself up, according to eyewitnesses.
RUTH PELED, 56, AND HER INFANT GRANDDAUGHTER SINAI, AGED 14 MONTHS, OF PETAH TIKVA
May 27, 2002
Ruth Peled, 56, of Herzliya and her infant granddaughter Sinai Keinan, aged 14 months, of Petah Tikva were killed when a suicide bomber detonated himself near an ice cream parlor outside a shopping mall in Petah Tikva.
The explosion ripped through the Em Hamoshavot commercial center at around 6:40 PM. Among the injured were many children, who were inside the cafe and a nearby ice-cream parlor. Police said the bomb used contained around 10 kilograms of explosives, packed with metal objects to maximize the number of casualties.
Lior and Chen Keinan had gone to buy ice cream with their infant daughter Sinai and Chen's mother, Ruth Peled, when the blast occurred. Ruth and Sinai were killed. The infant's parents were among the 37 injured in the attack.
"You are talking about their first child," a family member said. "She was their whole world. They had gone for a walk and then stopped to rest and buy ice cream."
Ruth worked as an investigator for the Modi'in Ezrahi company and later as a medical secretary for the Mor Medical Institute. She suffered from kidney failure, and on the morning of the explosion had undergone tests for a possible transplant. Her husband, Natan, said: "If Ruthie had known that Sinai was killed, she would not have wanted to live." Her daughter Chen said, "I would need 30 years to write about my mother. It was 30 years of love, friendship and happiness. Not every mother is also a friend."
Ruth Peled and Sinai Keinan were buried side by side in Kibbutz Shefayim. Ruth is survived by her husband Natan, and their three children - Chen (31), Lee (30) and Udi (24).
RUSSIAN WOMAN WOUNDED IN EXPLOSION WHILE REMOVING SIGN READING “DEATH TO JEWS“
Russian woman wounded in explosion while removing sign reading 'Death to Jews'
The Associated Press
May. 27, 2002
A woman was hospitalized Monday with severe burns from an explosion that went off while she was trying to tear down a roadside sign outside Moscow reading "Death to Jews," police said. The woman was in critical but stable condition at Moscow's City Hospital No. 1 after the incident on the Kiev highway about 18 miles southwest of the capital, said traffic police investigators at the site.
The woman had been driving along the highway when she spotted a sign hand-painted with black letters reading "Death to Jews" posted by the roadside. She stopped her car and tried to pull the sign out of the earth, and was hit by the explosion, according to a duty officer with the Moscow regional police. A traffic police investigator confirmed that the blast was caused by an explosive device.
NASA FEARS ATTACK ON SHUTTLE CARRYING ISRAELI ASTRONAUT
NASA fears attack on shuttle carrying Israeli astronaut
By Nathan Guttman
Ha'aretz
May 17, 2002
The U.S. space agency NASA is concerned that the July 19 launch of its space shuttle, which will include for the first time an Israeli astronaut, could become a target for a terrorist attack
Although American intelligence services have not received a specific warning, NASA sources told the ABC-TV network that they are worried that the shuttle, which will include Colonel Ilan Ramon, could be a target for a terrorist attack.
According to ABC's report, NASA is afraid that a small plane may try and crash into the shuttle when it is on the launchpad. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, security around NASA launch sites has been intensified with fighter planes and AWACS spy planes protecting the area. Intelligence sources said there are no reports of a planned terrorist attack against the space shuttle, which is scheduled to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 19.
U.S. JEW WHO DEFENDED BESEIGED ARAFAT WEDS PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST
US Jew who defended besieged Arafat weds Palestinian activist
The Associated Press and the Jerusalem Post
May 27, 2002
A Jewish American who joined Yasser Arafat at his besieged West Bank office has wed a Palestinian-American activist in a ceremony blending Christian and Jewish rites. Adam Shapiro, 30, of New York and Huwaida Arraf, 26, of the Detroit suburb of Roseville were married Sunday at St. Joseph Chaldean Catholic Church in Troy, Michigan.
"I'm very excited," Shapiro said before the ceremony began. "Now that it is actually happening, I'm very happy." About 300 relatives and friends attended the ceremony, in which a passage from the book of Genesis was read in Arabic and the groom followed the Jewish tradition of stepping on a glass.
"It is not political in any way, shape or form," said Arraf. "I don't even think along those lines. I'm marrying someone from a Jewish background. I have many friends who are Israeli. "This 'Arab vs. Jew' thing is misleading."
Both Shapiro and Arraf have played visible parts in promoting Palestinian rights during the recent flare-up of fighting between Israel and Palestinian forces. On March 29, Shapiro accompanied an ambulance crew into Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, besieged by the IDF after the Passover suicide bombing in a Netanya hotel.
Shapiro spent 24 hours in Arafat's compound, sharing breakfast with the Palestinian leader and about six aides. He later gave the media an account of conditions inside.
Shapiro, who told various news outlets he does not consider himself a Jew, previously worked for Seeds of Peace, a summer camp that brings Jewish and Arab teenagers to Maine every year to learn about coexistence. He also taught English in Yemen and led tour groups through the Muslim country. For the past three years, Shapiro has lived in Ramallah.
The newlyweds planned to honeymoon for a few days in Jamaica, The Detroit News said, before returning to their political work in the West Bank.
FIVE ISRAELI SOLDIERS SENT TO PRISON FOR LOOTING, VANDALIZING PALESTINIAN PROPERTY
Five Israeli soldiers sent to prison for looting, vandalizing Palestinian property
The Associated Press
May 27, 2002
Five Israeli soldiers have been sent to prison for looting and vandalizing Palestinian property during a six-week Israeli offensive in the West Bank, the Israeli army said Monday.
The soldiers, who were sentenced to up to five months in a military jail, were also dropped to the rank of private, the army said in a statement. The army said another six soldiers have been charged for looting and vandalizing Palestinian property during the offensive that ended earlier this month. The incursions followed a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel that killed scores of people.
Palestinians have said personal possessions, including jewelry, office equipment and shop wares, were stolen by troops during the incursion. Not all reports of looting could be confirmed, and Palestinian journalists have said some complaints may be exaggerated or concocted to get compensation promised by Arab states.
SCHINDLER LIST SURVIVOR DIES
Schindler list survivor dies
The Jerusalem Post
May 27, 2002
Holocaust survivor and artist Joseph Bau, one of the Jews who was on Oscar Schindler's famous list, died on Friday in Tel Aviv, he was 81. The Polish-born Bau was a survivor of the Cracow Ghetto and Plaszow concentration. The story of his concentration camp wedding to Rebecca Tannenbaum was a prominent feature and a moving scene in Steven Speilberg's movie Schindler's List. Bau maintained his contact with Oscar Schindler following the war and was often visited by him.
“THE PIANIST” WINS PALME D'OR AT CANNES
Polanski's Holocaust film wins Palme d'Or at Cannes
May 27, 2002
News Agencies
CANNES, France - Franco-Polish director Roman Polanski won the Cannes film festival's coveted Palme d'Or (Golden Palm) award on Sunday for "The Pianist," the story of one man's survival in the Warsaw ghetto during World War Two.
The film stars Adrien Brody as a brilliant Polish pianist who manages to escape the Warsaw ghetto. As boy in Poland, Polanski himself survived the Krakow ghetto but lost his mother at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland.
It was the first time that Polanski, director of such classics as "Chinatown," "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby," has taken the top prize at the world's most famous film festival. "I am honored and moved to receive this prestigious prize for a film which represents Poland," said Polanski, who was born in France to Jewish parents but later returned to Poland.
[Note for those of you on this list in north and south America who may not know, the Eurovision song contest is Europe's premier pop music contest, broadcast live on TV in 120 countries and watched by many tens of millions --TG]
SWEDES, BELGIANS TOLD NOT TO VOTE FOR ISRAEL IN EUROVISION
Swedes, Belgians told not to vote for Israel in Eurovision
By Ha'aretz Staff
Ha'aretz
May 26, 2002
The Belgian and Swedish Jewish communities were left fuming Saturday night after their local TV presenters advised viewers not to vote for Israel's entry in the Eurovision song contest, held in the Estonian capital of Tallinn. Israel's entry, "Light a Candle," was sung by Sarit Hadad.
Swedes watching the national TV1 station said that the presenters announced before Hadad appeared that Israel was not even meant to take part in the contest "because of what it is doing to the Palestinians."
The Swedish jury did not award any points to Israel. Belgian viewers were also advised not to vote for Israel. Its jury however awarded Hadad two points. Announcers on Flemish TV told their viewers not to be duped into thinking that Hadad's white dress meant that Israel wanted peace, Israel Radio reported Sunday.
Hadad finished 12th with 37 points. The Latvian song "I Wanna" won the song contest. Due to the Israeli song's ranking, Israel will participate in next year's contest, to be held in Latvia.
Yoav Ginai, who wrote the lyrics for the Israeli song, told Israel Radio that the delegation was very pleased with the result. "This is a great achievement in light of the difficult situation, and the political nature of the vote," Ginai told the radio.
The Israeli delegation, he said, encountered anti-Israel remarks during their week-long stay in Tallin. "We heard very unpleasant remarks at the hotel and during rehearsals," Ginai said.
The Swedish ambassador to Israel told Army Radio on Sunday that he doubted the reports regarding TV1, but that if the presenters had made anti-Israel comments, they were expressing a "personal" position and not that held by the government.
“TERROR IS THE SAME IN NEW YORK, KARACHI, DJERBA OR TEL AVIV”
European Jews to protest in Brussels
By Yair Sheleg, Ha'aretz Correspondent
Ha'aretz
May 28, 2002
Thousands of Jews from across Europe are expected to gather Tuesday in Brussels, capital of the European Union, to protest against the current wave of anti-Semitism and to express their support for Israel.
The demonstration is being organized by the European Jewish Congress, the umbrella organization of the European Jewish communities. The demonstrators will carry placards reading: "Terror is the same in New York, Karachi, Djerba or Tel Aviv."
Tomorrow's gathering is an indication of the renewed awakening of European Jewry after years of political apathy, according to Dr Avi Becker, secretary of the World Jewish Congress. He said thousands of Jewish students, as well as representatives of the large factions in the European parliament, would also attend the rally.
YASSER ARAFAT CHEESE SNACK IS BIG HIT IN EGYPT
Yasser Arafat cheese snack is big hit in Egypt
Reuters
May 28, 2002
Yasser Arafat cheese puffs are the new hit snack on the streets of Egypt's capital. A cartoon of the Palestinian leader salutes consumers from each 25-piastre ($.05) bag of Abu Ammar chips, beckoning them to buy the snack and support the Intifada.
"Abu Ammar, hero of the struggle," the cover reads in bright red letters, referring to Arafat by his nom de guerre. "The more you buy, the more you build," the bags say. "Heartbeat by heartbeat, hand by hand, we'll build a new era."
The bags feature a cartoon of an open-mouthed Arafat in khaki military dress and his trademark black-and-white checked headscarf against the backdrop of a Palestinian flag. The cheese-flavored corn puffs lie at Arafat's feet.
One Cairo shopkeeper said demand was high for the snack, launched two weeks ago by Egyptian food group al-Jawhara. "They [Egyptians] buy it because they see Abu Ammar, and they are sympathetic with the Palestinian people," said shopkeeper Mursi Mahmoud Mohammad on Monday. "They love this man. They love the people of Palestine," he said.
CONTENTS
1. "War and pieces" (Guardian, May 18, 2002)
2. "Open door: Balancing act" (Guardian, May 25, 2002)
3. The New York Times responds to boycott (New York Times, May 23, 2002)
4. "'Israelis kill Palestinians' is less of a story these days than 'Israelis DON'T kill Palestinians'." (Daily Telegraph, May 24, 2002)
5. "Lawyer takes on BBC over 'bias'" (Jewish Chronicle, May 24, 2002)
“HAVE WE ‘BEEN ANTI-SEMITIC’ ASKS THE GUARDIAN?”
[Note by Tom Gross]
I attach five pieces concerning media reporting of Israel. The first three – from the (London) Guardian and New York Times – show that these influential and often anti-Israeli dailies on respective sides of the Atlantic, are making an attempt to listen to the criticism leveled at them.
Have we "been anti-Semitic" asks the Guardian?
"Intense public reaction to coverage of the violence of the Middle East conflict has prompted unusually harsh attacks on... and has led to a boycott of The New York Times," admits the New York Times, some weeks into the current boycott.
The last two items, from the British publications the Daily Telegraph and the Jewish Chronicle concern the BBC, which has not admitted any bias against Israel. The first item concerns an email about Jenin sent by the BBC's editor for live political programs to fellow BBC staff. The second is a story about a London lawyer who claims that in its sustained misreporting about Israel, the British government-owned BBC has failed to follow its own policy guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.
I would like to thank all of you who wrote concerning my recent piece "Jeningrad: What the British media said." I don't have time to reply to everyone individually. Among those who wrote to me was the editor in chief of The Guardian, a paper I criticized in the article. While he was critical of my piece in some respects he also acknowledged that I had "some good points." To read this article please see the dispatch Jeningrad – What the British media said (May 13, 2002).
-- Tom Gross
CRITICSM OF THE GUARDIAN’S MIDDLE EAST COVERAGE
PART 1
War and pieces [First of two parts. Second part next Saturday]
The readers' editor on... criticism of our Middle East coverage
By Ian Mayes
The Guardian
May 18, 2002
This week I circulated Guardian staff, and not just the journalists, with the following questionnaire: Do you think the Guardian's Middle East coverage has been fair or unfair to the Israeli side? Has it been fair or unfair to the Palestinians? Has it been anti-semitic? Has it been anti-Islam (or anti- Palestinian). Do you think the coverage has changed in any way in recent weeks?
General comments were invited and many of the 30 or so who responded chose to give me their views entirely in this form and to ignore the questionnaire so I cannot give you tabulated results. The intention, in any case, was simply to let you in on some of the thinking inside the Guardian. I tried to put the questions in a way that did not suggest a particular response. The majority of those who answered believe the coverage has been good and generally fair.
First, here are the views of a non-journalist colleague who believes it has been unfair to the Israeli side, anti-semitic and indulgent to the Palestinians: "I am sure I will be the lone voice in criticising [the] treatment of the conflict, but without exception my friends (and not all of them are supportive of Sharon) feel the paper is virulently anti-Israel (and anti-semitic) and not one of them would consider buying it. My own family were loyal Guardian readers but stopped in the 1990s because of its relentless hostility towards Israel... [Now I] try very hard not to read articles about the conflict as they only succeed in disappointing me with their blatant anti-Israel sentiments and the plain inaccuracy of the reporting."
She lists examples, with Jenin at the head. "I was utterly disgusted at the front page headline 'Massacre' regarding Jenin. The newspaper has a responsibility, especially given how delicate the situation is, not to report such damaging accusations unless it has the proof to back it up. Where was the bold headline saying, 'Lies, there was no massacre'?"
The comments I have quoted strongly reflect complaints from Jewish, or pro-Israeli readers, which far outweigh complaints from pro-Palestinian or other sources.
In fact the Guardian has not at any time applied the word "massacre" to the events at Jenin. On Wednesday April 17, it carried the following headline across the front page: Israel faces rage over 'massacre'. The word was enclosed in single quotation marks – a subtlety lost in the passions generated. The accompanying report, beneath the bylines of three staff journalists, recorded the Commons debate in which Gerald Kaufman denounced Mr Sharon as a "war criminal". It did not attribute the term "massacre" to Mr Kaufman. It made it clear that it came from a leading Palestinian, Nabil Shaath. It also quoted an Israeli government spokesman dismissing the allegations as "ridiculous".
The sensitivity is easily understood. But it cannot be said too often that the coverage should be judged over a period. A senior correspondent and commentator, who believes the coverage in general has been "pretty good and pretty balanced", felt that the paper's overall reporting of Jenin showed its skill in getting the facts and "getting them from both sides". A piece featuring Palestinian anger and distress should be seen against a contrasting report "about Israel soldiers' anger that the restraint they showed in the Jenin operation was not recognised". He believes the Guardian made it clear from the start that "there was no real likelihood of a Jenin massacre and kept the larger picture in view better than other journals".
He made this point, however, about balance. "It does not mean what some insist on, namely that every time Sharon is criticised there must be a sideswipe at Arafat, or that every time Israeli operations are mentioned, the most recent suicide bombings must be recalled in considerable detail.
"Balance does not mean that blame must be equally apportioned – much of the American coverage that is, up to a point, critical of Israel suffers from this false symmetry... We do not normally fall into the trap of this deeply unbalanced balance." One colleague, not involved in the Middle East coverage said, "I am fed up with being reproached every time I tell any active member of the Jewish community that I work for the Guardian." He did feel there was cause for concern. He felt, for instance, that – to revert to Jenin – the use of the word "massacre", even in inverted commas, was "extremely prejudicial... A day later we were writing that there was no evidence of a massacre at all."
I shall continue this next week, with more comments and the views of the editor and foreign editor.
CRITICSM OF THE GUARDIAN’S MIDDLE EAST COVERAGE
PART 2
Open door: Balancing act
The readers' editor on.... charges that the paper has been anti-semitic
By Ian Mayes
The Guardian
May 25, 2002
Many of the Guardian journalists who responded to my invitation to give their views on the paper's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict commented on accusations, levelled in correspondence from Jewish readers, that it has been anti-semitic.
One or two thought there had been occasional lapses which might have encouraged an inclination to see it that way – a reference to "the comparative wealth and position of Britain's Jewish community", was one phrase cited and compared with a piece which referred to Jewish control of Hollywood and the media. (The latter was 18 months ago and I responded to it then by saying it contained statements which were understandably construed as anti-semitic.) Another journalist, citing similar examples, thought that a few months ago the coverage was "so anti-Israeli it was embarrassing".
There was a strong rejection by practically everyone of the suggestion that the coverage was permeated by anti-semitism, an impression that sometimes appears to have been formed remotely: "My Jewish family think we only publish pro-Palestinian pieces and opinions because that's what they read in the Jewish press." Many read only selected articles circulated to them by lobbies.
One of the paper's leading commentators believes the perception of anti-semitism among the Jewish readership derives more from tone and a sense that the Guardian sees humanity only on the Palestinian side, that it will explain Palestinian action in a way less readily afforded to the Israelis. Jewish readers, he said, "are telling us loud and clear an inconvenient truth: that they see Israel as a version of themselves, that an attack on the Jewish state is an attack on Jews, whether we like it or not.
"The Guardian is a progressive paper with a noble history: we were first in the British press to realise the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany and we were an early backer of the Zionist project. But now we are seen as a paper that is hostile to the Jews, one even liberal Jews cannot read any more."
One journalist insisted:"It is not anti-semitic to criticise the brutal and racist regime of Ariel Sharon... it is not anti-semitic to hear the voices of the Palestinians; it is not anti-semitic to see Palestinians as the victims of a situation in which they are overwhelmingly the underdog."
A senior Guardian journalist said: "One of the biggest problems for reporters [has been] to withstand the – clearly orchestrated – pressure to equate any criticism of Israeli government action with anti-semitism... The blackmail of making one feel ashamed to criticise Israeli actions... [can lead] to immeasurable damage."
A running criticism of the range of comment in the Guardian was, in fact, that it was short of articulate Palestinian and Muslim voices, some of which among the latter would be critical of the Palestinians.
The foreign editor believes that throughout the Guardian far more space has been devoted to the conflict than in other newspapers – some think too much, at the expense of other parts of the world whose problems seem devalued by disproportion. He thinks this may be partly because of the Guardian's role mentioned earlier.
"We were part of Israel's foundation and it is a part of our history... The problem for our Jewish readers is that this time round we are perceived as not supporting Israel. That is a misconception. We support Israel but we do not support this government... we are committed to telling the story, to showing the terror caused by suicide bombing but also to showing the oppression – I think that is the correct word – of the Palestinians. We will not be browbeaten into being bland."
The editor of the Guardian says: "The situation is very grave, very violent on both sides and the difficulties of reporting it are horrendous – your reporter being shot at by Israeli forces on the ground.
"The Israelis' information network and monitoring of the press is much more active and professional than the Palestinians'. We have a role in articulating their case – giving a voice to the voiceless is how I put it – but not disproportionately or uncritically.
"Our leader line has been very critical of the Sharon government which is, in our view, in a cul-de-sac. We think that to identify Israel with Bush's war on terrorism is a grossly simplified reading of the situation. We have also said that Arafat is a busted flush and criticised the surrounding Arab nations for their failure to play any constructive role. But, in the end, we think friends of Israel should not shy away from criticising the behaviour of a government which, in our view, is harming the cause of Israel itself."
Next week's column will be devoted to readers' responses to this and last week's column. Readers may contact the office of the readers' editor by telephoning 0845 451 9589 between 11am and 5pm Monday to Friday (all calls are charged at local rate). Mail to Readers' editor, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. Fax 020-7239 9997. Email: reader@guardian.co.uk
THE NEW YORK TIMES RESPONDS TO BOYCOTT
The New York Times responds to boycott
By Felicicty Barringer
New York Times
May 23, 2002
Intense public reaction to coverage of the violence of the Middle East conflict has prompted unusually harsh attacks on several news media outlets and has led to boycotts of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
Broadcast news operations, including CNN and National Public Radio, have also been criticized. The general manager of one public radio station, WBUR-FM in Boston, said it had lost more than $1 million in underwriting and pledges this year nearly 4 percent of its annual budget because some supporters of Israel encouraged people not to give.
The criticism has come largely from supporters of Israel, and it reached a climax in recent weeks in the aftermath of the suicide bombing at a Passover seder in Netanya, which killed 28 Israelis, and the subsequent incursion by Israeli troops into West Bank cities like Ramallah, Bethelehem and Jenin, where the destruction of homes and loss of life among Palestinians was highly visible.
The swift communications of the Internet era apparently help fan the intensity of the criticism.
For instance, an account of supposedly anti-Israel remarks made by a CNN correspondent in Jerusalem was widely circulated, despite what Eason Jordan, the chief news executive of CNN, said were denials by the correspondent. Mr. Jordan said he could find up to 6,000 e-mail messages protesting coverage in his in-box in a single day.
The network, Mr. Jordan said, has as high a household penetration in Israel as anywhere in the world. It is being more closely watched right now, when, he said, Israeli sympathizers believe "that Israel is literally in a fight for its life." He added, "One of the only things that Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon have in common is they both think CNN is biased toward the opposite side."
The coverage by The New York Times has been condemned by rabbis in several congregations.
Pictures, headlines and photo captions have all been denounced, but the boycotters' most fundamental complaints are that in their view The Times creates a false equivalence between the sides in the conflict and gives disproportionate attention to Palestinian suffering.
Critics of The Times dispatched hundreds of e-mail messages and angry commentary earlier this month when it published a front-page photograph of the Salute to Israel parade in Manhattan that showed a small group of pro-Palestinian counterdemonstrators in the foreground and pro-Israeli marchers and their supporters in the background.
Since the pro-Israeli marchers and supporters numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and the pro-Palestinian group in the hundreds, the photograph and a pair of related photographs in the Metro section reinforced the critics' impression that The Times was straining to create a sense of equivalence.
An editors' note the next day said, "In fairness the total picture presentation should have better reflected The Times's reporting on the scope of the event, including the disparity in the turnouts."
The boycott of The Times began on May 1 and is planned to last until the end of the month. Readers were urged by American Jewish figures critical of The Times' coverage to cancel subscriptions for a month.
Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the boycott had resulted in cancellations, but would not say how many.
Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, who is one of the organizers of the boycott, said in an interview this week, "Pictures appeared in The Times day after day, especially during Operation Defensive Shield, of suffering Palestinians, with no comparative pictures about suffering Israelis."
He added, "Is it O.K. to keep writing things on suffering Palestinians who are suffering because of the terrorism of their colleagues and not to give sufficient attention to the victims of terror?"
Avi Weiss, the senior rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, said articles like the one detailing the lives of both a teenage Palestinian suicide bomber and the teenage Israeli woman who was her victim reflected a skewed moral equivalence.
"The Times may feel this is necessary to present balance," he said. "I would suggest there is no moral equivalence between cold-blooded murder and self-defense."
Howell Raines, executive editor of The Times, responding to the boycott, said: "We respect our readers' right to express their opinion. We are unhappy whenever we lose a single reader."
He added: "Our plan for future coverage is to continue it within The Times's traditions of fairness and balance. We feel that the coverage thus far has met our standards in this regard, and we will remain vigilant to make sure that continues to be the case."
Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of The Jewish Week, is a critic of The Times's coverage. But in a May 10 editorial in his paper, which has tens of thousands of subscribers, he opposed the boycott.
"We need more constructive criticism, more marshaling of information, more voices speaking out for fair reporting," he wrote, "not a call to shut ourselves off from reporting and opinions we don't want to deal with."
Other newspapers face similar criticism. A portion of the Web site boycottthepost.org, which is encouraging a one-week boycott of The Washington Post in June, complained that the newspaper "presents both sides of the conflict as if each were equally valid and credible."
A brief boycott of The Los Angeles Times in April resulted in the one-day stoppage of 1,200 deliveries, according to Martha Goldstein, a spokeswoman for the newspaper.
At other newspapers, editors agree that the intensity of the criticism has steadily increased. James O'Shea, the managing editor of The Chicago Tribune, said: "It's not looking at coverage over all over a period of months and asking, 'Is there balance?' It's finding headlines, pictures, looking at the placement of a story and picking apart those elements."
While the the pro-Israeli Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or Camera, studies newpapers for evidence of bias, Palestine Media Watch has been monitoring the coverage of newspapers like The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Like pro-Israeli critics, the pro-Palestian groups focus on issues of balance and equivalence and on common vocabulary. Ahmed T. Bouzid, the president of Palestine Media Watch, argued, among other things, that the word retaliation was often used about Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, which, he said, "frames it as a reaction to something, not an action initiated by Israelis." He said he was pushing to eliminate mediocre journalism, not charging bias.
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, echoed such criticism, but said he would not encourage a boycott. To do "what the Jewish community has done, to incite their members to boycott, to feel so injured that people work themselves into a lather over press coverage does damage to the possibility of discourse," he said.
“‘ISRAELIS KILL PALESTINIANS’ IS LESS OF A STORY THESE DAYS THAN ‘ISRAELIS DON’T KILL PALESTINIANS’”
Daily Telegraph diary item
The Daily Telegraph (London)
May 24, 2002
Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of the Jerusalem Post who writes in the Spectator of the BBC's "unchallenged diatribe" against Israel, is not the only one fuelling accusations of anti-semitism at the corporation. BBC staff are managing to do it themselves. As the Jewish Chronicle reveals today, Gareth Butler, the BBC's editor for live political programmes, e-mailed colleagues urging them to interview his girlfriend, a human rights activist visiting Jenin. "If you were interested in a couple of minutes of vivid reportage, she's right there on the front line," he said, concluding: "Then again, as I explained to her, 'Israelis kill Palestinians' is less of a story these days than 'Israelis DON'T kill Palestinians'." The BBC admits the e-mail was "poorly phrased" but says it has no reason to doubt Butler's "professional integrity".
LAWYER TAKES ON BBC OVER “BIAS”
Lawyer takes on BBC over 'bias'
By Joseph Millis
The Jewish Chronicle (London)
May 24, 2002
A London lawyer has compiled a 43-page report in support of a claim of anti-Israel bias in the BBC's Middle East reporting.
Trevor Asserson contends that the corporation has not followed its own policy guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, at times appearing to "invent material to suit its own bias."
The BBC, defending its coverage, said its journalists made great efforts, often under difficult circumstances, to present a balanced picture.
Mr Asserson, 45, head of commercial litigation at the law firm Bird & Bird, wrote the "critical study" with the help of an Israeli lawyer, Elisheva Mironi. While not citing specific BBC journalists or news items, it says that generally, by "selection or omission of facts," BBC reports can convey "the very opposite of the truth."
The study takes issue with the description of West Bank settlements as "illegal," and alleges that while Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon is often "treated with undisguised hostility" on the BBC, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat is portrayed as "a noble, dignified and courageous statesman."
In reply, a BBC spokesman said "great pains" were taken to present a balanced picture. He noted that BBC journalists worked at "considerable personal risk" in the knowledge that "any report they compile will be seen as one-sided or weighted for its lack of inclusion of a phrase, fact, or bit of history by a partisan viewer. And let us be clear – from that perspective, there are many truths."
Saying there were also complaints from "the other side," and rejecting Mr Asserson's claim policy guidelines had been breached, the spokesman said the BBC was "constantly reviewing Middle East coverage... with our very experienced team in the region, who are well aware of the sensitivity of some of the words and phrases they must employ."
Disappointed by what he termed the corporation's "blanket denial," Mr Asserson told the JC: "I have set up a group, BBCwatch, which will monitor the corporation over its clear obligation to be fair."
CONTENTS
1. "How do you define a massacre?" (Asharq Al-Awsat, May 18, 2002)
2. "Crisis for American Jews" (By Edward Said, Al Ahram Weekly, May 16-22, 2002)
3. "A Jewish view of the Jewish state" (Asharq Al-Awsat, May 21, 2002)
4. "Worse than CNN? BBC News & the Mideast" (Counterpunch, May 16, 2002)
THE BBC MAY BE “EVEN MORE PRO-ISRAELI” THAN CNN
[Note by Tom Gross]
Several people have asked me to occasionally provide anti-Israeli articles.
I attach:
(1) "How do you define a massacre?" by Ramzy Baroud (May 18, 2002). This article, from Asharq Al-Awsat, an influential Saudi paper which is published in London, expands on the usual revisionism about the Christian militia killing of civilians at Sabra and Shatilla, and about the recent fighting in Jenin, vastly exaggerating the death count in both cases. Contradicting what the official Palestinian authorities now say, Baroud suggests that "Men and women [were] shot in their homes while sitting down for dinner, when gazing at heaven asking for mercy for the sake of the little ones." He says that "Palestinians are not quick to name Israel's killings massacres, but massacres name themselves."
(2) "Crisis for American Jews," by Columbia University professor Edward Said, published in Al Ahram Weekly (May 16-22, 2002). Among the factual inaccuracies in the article, Prof. Said says that after Paul Wolfowitz was booed at a recent rally in Washington, "he was unable to continue his speech" and had to leave the platform. This is not true.
(3) "A Jewish view of the Jewish state" by I. Heichler, published in Asharq Al-Awsat (May 21, 2002). Heichler, a retired U.S. diplomat, tells us he is a refugee from Nazi Austria, and then says "Palestine's native population [suffers] horrors reminiscent of [the] experience at the hands of the Nazis half a century ago". (Please note that the text of the article reads clumsily at certain points, and it appears that Asharq Al-Awsat have edited the piece badly and may have also removed parts.)
(4) A lengthy essay by the British-based journalist Paul de Rooij, in the magazine Counterpunch, entitled "Worse than CNN? BBC News & the Mideast". De Rooij claims that BBC news coverage may be "even more pro-Israeli" than CNN.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A MASSACRE?
How do you define a massacre?
By Ramzy Baroud
Asharq Al-Awsat
May 18, 2002
A popular search term for Internet search engines must be "Palestinian massacres". Why not? There are many of them. Some old and unforgettable, others new, and some are yet to come to an end.
20 years later, thousands of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre victims are yet to be accounted for. Should we count them as dead or missing? How long will be for the missing be classified as dead? Now you know why when we refer to that infamous West Beirut carnage, orchestrated by Israel and carried out by its allies, we still say: ".. where 2,000 to 4,000 were killed," for thousands are yet to be accounted for.
"How do you define a massacre?" An angry reader asked me in a message where he defended Israel's killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp as self-defense. You have to be a Palestinian journalist to be asked that question.
How does one define a massacre?
I honestly never sat down with a dictionary, to search for a definition. Pretty strange for someone who wrote about massacres carried out against his people starting 20 years before he was born.
The word massacre is chilling, yet very telling, in a gruesome way that is. Little ones buried under the rubble of their homes, some burned and others decomposed. That's a massacre.
Men and women shot in their homes, near their homes, while opening the door for a crowd of angry soldiers, while closing the window to avoid the eyes of a sniper; while sitting down for dinner, no matter how simple; when gazing at heaven asking for mercy for the sake of the little ones. That's a massacre.
No, Palestinians are not quick to name Israel's killings massacres, but massacres name themselves, they come uninvited, they occupy sections of our collective memory, soon to be added to an ever expanding list of massacres, starting over 53 years ago and still flowing as the present becomes history.
An Arab journalist criticized Al- Jazeera recently. "I am just afraid that by showing images of massacres over and over again, people will become so accustomed to such tragedies," he noted. The man (I made little efforts to remember his name) received a rebutting question: "so should we stop reporting on Israeli massacres?"
How silly his question appeared with such a response, yet how frightening the idea is: Getting accustomed to such tragedies. Living in a refugee camp most of my life, witnessing the horrors of the occupation in Palestine; then disfigured bodies of frail Iraqi children dying from sanctions and leukemia, and reading and reporting on horrendous crimes committed against the most innocent of this world, the children, I still can hardly feel accustomed to massacres.
"A friend shared this photo with me. I am not sure if you viewed it yet," someone wrote me earlier today. Although I am hesitant to e-mail attachment with the numberless viruses lurking all over the Internet, I still viewed the image.
The attachment was titled "Angelic face."
It was yet another picture from Jenin. It was of a young girl, as old as mine, maybe yours. She was half buried in the sand. Dead. Her face reflected innocence. But the beauty appeared as if she was a fossil being excavated.
I couldn't help but wonder, did her mom sew that special dress for her? Was it a birthday gift she received while surrounded by refugee children in Jenin with a few candles and a cake - "Happy birthday dear."
But what's her name? How old was the "Angelic face"? Did her parents survive? How was she killed? Was she in so much pain? Did she suffocate under the sand?
Oh, I hope it was quick and painless. Is this all that I am capable of doing, of saying. Is this what I, we, the whole world, humanity, are able to come up with: Wishing that Palestinian children's deaths were quick and painless.
Those who overcome their hesitance and opened the attachment to see the Angelic face, must have deleted the photo a few minutes later. You know, no one likes a crowded e-mail box. But will the image ever be deleted from our memories? Will Jenin also be deleted, or will it remain? Remain as what? A massacre? But how do you define a massacre?
I still don't have the proper answer, and I am little interested to search for one. I was hoping that the United Nations would investigate and let us know, so that I could reply to that angry message. But they failed to do so, because Israel didn't grant the UN fact-finding mission a permit to reach the camp.
I guess that Jenin would only remain a massacre in the eyes of Palestinian school kids who will chant on an April day of every year under a wavering Palestinian flag, in some remote refugee camp, the name of Jenin, its martyrs, the Angelic face, the massacres, all of them, starting with the old, to the new, and to the ones that are yet to come.
CRISIS FOR AMERICAN JEWS
Crisis for American Jews
By Edward Said
Al Ahram Weekly
May 16-22, 2002
Why is American Jewish support for Israel more fanatical than even anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis? Edward Said explains
(Caption of the photo which accompanied the article in Al Ahram: Edward Said in Lebanon Throwing Stones at Israel)
A few weeks ago, a vociferous pro-Israel demonstration was held in Washington at roughly the same moment that the siege of Jenin was taking place. All of the speakers were prominent public figures, including several senators, leaders of major Jewish organisations, and other celebrities, each of whom expressed unfailing solidarity with everything Israel was doing. The administration was represented by Paul Wolfowitz, number two at the Department of Defence, an extreme right-wing hawk who has been speaking about "ending" countries like Iraq ever since last September. Also known as a rigorous hard- line supporter of Israel, in his speech he did what everyone else did – celebrated Israel and expressed total unconditional support for it – but unexpectedly referred in passing to "the sufferings of the Palestinians." Because of that phrase, he was booed so loudly and so long that he was unable to continue his speech, leaving the platform in a kind of disgrace.
The moral of this incident is that public American Jewish support for Israel today simply does not tolerate any allowance for the existence of an actual Palestinian people, except in the context of terrorism, violence, evil and fanaticism. Moreover, this refusal to see, much less hear anything about, the existence of "another side" far exceeds the fanaticism of anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis, who are of course on the front line of the struggle in Palestine. To judge by the recent antiwar demonstration of 60,000 people in Tel Aviv, the increasing number of military reservists who refuse service in the occupied territories, the sustained protest of (admitted only a few) intellectuals and groups, and some of the polls that show a majority of Israelis willing to withdraw in return for peace with the Palestinians, there is at least a dynamic of political activity among Israeli Jews. But not so in the United States.
Two weeks ago the weekly magazine New York, which has a circulation of about a million copies, ran a dossier entitled "Crisis for American Jews," the theme being that "in New York, as in Israel, [it is] an issue of survival." I won't try to summarise the main points of this extraordinary claim except to say that it painted such a picture of anguish about "what is most precious in my life, the state of Israel," according to one of the prominent New Yorkers quoted in the magazine, that you would think that the existence of this most prosperous and powerful of all minorities in the United States was actually being threatened. One of the other people quoted even went as far as to suggest that American Jews are on the brink of a second holocaust. Certainly, as the author of one of the articles said, most American Jews support what Israel did on the West Bank, enthusiastically; one American Jew said, for instance, that his son is now in the Israeli army and that he is "armed, dangerous and killing as many Palestinians as possible."
Guilt at being well-off in America plays a role in this kind of delusional thinking, but mostly it is the result of an extraordinary self-isolation in fantasy and myth that comes from education and unreflective nationalism of a kind unique in the world. Ever since the Intifada broke out almost two years ago, the American media and the major Jewish organisations have been running all kinds of attacks on Islamic education in the Arab world, Pakistan and even in the US. These have accused Islamic authorities, as well as Arafat's Palestinian Authority, of teaching youngsters hatred of America and Israel, the virtues of suicide bombing, unlimited praise for jihad. Little has been said, however, of the results of what American Jews have been taught about the conflict in Palestine: that it was given to Jews by God, that it was empty, that it was liberated from Britain, that the natives ran away because their leaders told them to, that in effect the Palestinians don't exist except recently as terrorists, that all Arabs are anti-Semitic and want to kill Jews.
Nowhere in all this incitement to hatred does the reality of a Palestinian people exist, and more to the point, there is no connection made between Palestinian animosity and enmity towards Israel and what Israel has been doing to Palestinians since 1948. It's as if an entire history of dispossession, the destruction of a society, the 35 year old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, to say nothing of massacres, bombardments, expulsions, land expropriations, killings, sieges, humiliations, years of collective punishment and assassinations that have gone on for decades were as nothing, since Israel has been victimised by Palestinian rage, hostility and gratuitous anti-semitism. It simply does not occur to most American supporters of Israel to see Israel as the actual author of specific actions done in the name of the Jewish people by the Jewish state, and to connect in consequence those actions to Palestinian feelings of anger and revenge.
The problem at bottom is that as human beings the Palestinians do not exist, that is, as human beings with history, traditions, society, sufferings and ambitions like all other people. Why this should be so for most but by no means all American Jewish supporters of Israel is something worth looking into. It goes back to the knowledge that there was an indigenous people in Palestine – all the Zionist leaders knew it and spoke about it – but the fact as a fact that might prevent colonisation could never be admitted. Hence the collective Zionist practice of either denying the fact or, more specially in the US where the realities are not so available for actual verification, lying about it by producing a counter-reality. For decades it has been decreed to schoolchildren there were no Palestinians when the Zionist pioneers arrived and so those miscellaneous people who throw stones and fight occupation are simply a collection of terrorists who deserve killing. Palestinians, in short, do not deserve anything like a narrative or collective actuality, and so they must be transmuted and dissolved into essentially negative images. This is entirely the result of a distorted education, doled out to millions of youngsters who grow up without any awareness at all that the Palestinian people have been totally dehumanised to serve a political- ideological end, namely to keep support high for Israel.
What is so astonishing is that notions of co- existence between peoples play no part in this kind of distortion. Whereas American Jews want to be recognised as Jews and Americans in America, they are unwilling to accord a similar status as Arabs and Palestinians to another people that has been oppressed by Israel since the beginning.
Only if