Media Watch
Bias on BBC Website: Profile of Israel/The Territories and their Respective Political Leaderships.
To the Manager
BBC Complaints
BBC Web Site
June 5, 2003
Sir:
I have read with care the
text of the BBC
website Country Profile which profiles
Israel and the West Bank territories and have come to the
conclusion that the text is inaccurate, biased, tendentious
and therefore in need of correction. For your convenience
I have first copied below in black font, the BBC website text,
my comments thereon are then set out in red, followed by my
suggestions for corrections which are in green font.
I regret very much that my
comments are so extensive, but I believe it is necessary either
to correct some misconceptions or to bring to your attention
information of which you may either have overlooked or been
unaware.
Yours faithfully,
Gerald M. Adler,
Hove.
Adjunct Professor of Law (1969-1983)
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
|
Country profile: Israel and Palestinian autonomous
areas
1.
The division of the former British mandate of Palestine
and the creation of the state of Israel in the years after the end
of World War II have been at the heart of Middle Eastern conflicts
for the past half century.
Arab opposition to Jewish settlement has been well
in excess of half a century and long before the creation of the
PLO in 1964. Between 1921 and 1948 the British and Palestine Governments
frustrated the terms of the Mandate granted by the League of Nations
in 1920-22. Initially Churchill at the Cairo Conference in 1921
(White Paper 1922) effectively severed approximately 75% of the
territory mandated by the League of Nations to Britain within which
the Jewish homeland was to be established. It given to Emir Abdullah
to administer: (i) in return for Hashemite support against Turkey
in WW I.; (ii) to reduce Britain’s financial burden of the
cost of the Mandate administration; and (iii) to prevent French
political and economic influence extending beyond Syria.
In the remaining territory west of the Jordan, the
local British Military Administration frustrated the League of Nations
mandate by encouraging Arab violence in resistance to the policy
of the Jewish National Home. This was accompanied periodically by
the civil misadministration that chose the line of least resistance
when presented with Arab violent opposition in 1920, 1929, 1936-39.
(See Peel Commission Report Cmd 5479) The violence was orchestrated
by Haj el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, who in the early days of
the British Administration received encouragement and strong backing
from senior British Administrators. Colonel Watts-Taylor, Chief
Secretary to the Civil Administration together with his wife, actively
encouraged Husseini to initiate violent Arab opposition to the Mandate’s
declared objectives. Later, in London, Sir George Rendel, Head of
the Middle Eastern desk at the Foreign Office also played a significant
role in frustrating the objectives of the mandate.
(see Meinerhertzhagen Middle East Diary 1917-1956, The Cresset Press,
London 1959; Bentwich, Mandate memories 1918-1948 Hogarth Press,
London 1965; E. Horne, A Job Well Done, PPOC, Leigh-on-Sea, 1982;
John Marlowe Rebellion in Palestine, Cresset Press, London, 1946;
Michael J. Cohen, Palestine: Retreat from the Mandate, Paul Elek,
London1978)
I suggest therefore a more accurate description
of the situation would be
"The indecisive British administration of the
former Mandate of Palestine which, in 1921 called for the establishment
of a Jewish National Home, leading ultimately to the creation of
the State of Israel in the years after the end of World War II,
have been at the heart of Middle Eastern conflicts for nearly a
century"
2.
The creation of Israel was the culmination of the Zionist movement,
whose aim was a homeland for Jews scattered all over the world following
the Diaspora. After the Nazi Holocaust, pressure grew for the international
recognition of a Jewish state, and in 1948 Israel came into being.
OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA
Much of the history of the region since that time
has been one of conflict between Israel on one side and Palestinians,
represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Israel's
Arab neighbours, on the other.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced,
and several wars were fought involving Egypt, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon.
Putting the above in the passive tense is tendentious
and presents a false picture. The overview fails to indicate who
was responsible for what-
Palestinian Displacement
The displacement of Palestinians was only partially
caused by Jewish military action. The major cause of the displacement
by far was the orders of the Arab High Committee directing the Arab
population of Palestine to leave their homes in the expectation
that the 5 Arab armies which invaded Israel upon its establishment
would quickly conquer the Jewish population. A second influential
factor causing Arabs to flee was the AHC propaganda broadcasts exaggerating
civilian casualties and "atrocities" arising from the
military action at Dir Yassin. The village was actually a legitimate
military target overlooking the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, from
where Jewish traffic was regularly attacked by Arab militia. (See
Morton A. Klein, "Dir Yassin: History of a Lie”
http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm.).
In contrast, why do you make no mention of the fact that significant
portions of Arab Palestinian population were persuaded by local
Jewish leadership to remain in their homes in Nazareth and Haifa
areas?
”Wars were fought”
This implies a moral equivalency. In each of the
wars, Israel was acting in self-defence.
The 1948 War was fought to prevent the invasion
of the 5 Arab armies annihilating the nascent Jewish State, the
establishment of which was supported by a vote of over 2/3rds of
the United Nations.
In the 1956 Suez conflict, Israel acted in self-defence
to prevent incursions of “fedayen” murder groups into
her territory. These were not isolated incidents, but military actions
organised and implemented with the knowledge and cooperation of
Arab Governments generally and with Egypt’s Nasser in particular
The Six Day War- June 1967- demanded pre-emptive
self defensive action by Israel under Article 52 of the UN Charter,
justified by the following causus belli:
(i) Egyptian blockade of the international Straits
of Tiran to Israeli shipping, (ii) Egyptian demand for, and UN Secretary
General’s acquiescence in the removal of the UN peace-keeping
force from Sinai, (iii) the massing of Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian
troops on Israel- Arab cease fire lines established in 1948-1949
and (iv) inaction on the part of the UN Security Council to prevent
the Arab aggression.
In particular, on the morning of June 5, 1967 Israel
had notified Jordan through General Odd Bull, the chief UN observer
in Jerusalem, and through British diplomatic channels, that if Jordan
did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Persuaded
by Arab pressure to join the conflict and by Egyptian propaganda
that it was achieving military success, Jordan joined in the fray.
Along the winding armistice lines between the two countries, Jordan
launched an artillery barrage against targets within Israel at 11.00
on June 5, 1967.
Israel- in self defence- retaliated and Jordan ultimately lost control
of the “West Bank” including East Jerusalem within 36
hours- a cease-fire being accepted by both sides at 20.00 hrs on
June 7, 1967.
Attempts by Israel to negotiate a peace with Arabs and the return
of the West Bank to their control was rejected by the Arab summit
on September 1, 1967 with Khartoum Conference’s three “noes”:
no negotiation with Israel; no recognition of Israel; no peace with
Israel.
Consequently, until the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel
retained total control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The Yom Kippur War 1973- again initiated by Egypt
and Syria. Israel was taken by surprise on its holiest day of the
year, Israeli intelligence having mistakenly assessed Arab troop
movements which had began some days before.
The Wars Against Terrorism: Entebbe - PLO in Jordan-
PLO in Lebanon- (see Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, Arms and
Armour Press, London, 1982)
Intifada 2000 following Oslo breakdown.
Arafat’s failed to obtain 100% of his demands at Camp David
in July 2000 and resorted to violence in September, breaking his
express undertakings to resolve the conflict by negotiation. In
many Arab eyes, the Oslo Accords were considered as part of a long
term strategy the ultimate objective being the replacement of Israel
by an Arab-Palestinian secular state.
(See “Captured documents from Arafat's Compound, inciting
Israeli Arabs to join the Intifada, Arafat unwilling to recognize
Israel's right to exist”. IDF Spokesperson's Office April
13 2002 http://www.idf.il/gilui/site/english/main_index.stm . See
also Special Dispatch Series - No. 515 June 3, 2003 No.515 Arafat's
Nakba Day Speech www.memri.org
Time and again critics note that the PLO Charter
still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and notwithstanding
the Oslo Accords, it has actually never been changed. In the report
published in Dubai in Arabic, on October 7, 2002 PLO, Foreign Minister
Faruq Qaddumi stated that the PLO no longer recognizes Israel and
adheres to its national charter, which in Article 15 calls for "the
liquidation of the Zionist presence." - a common Arabic euphemism
for the destruction of Israel (http://www.albayan.co.ae (07 Oct
02)
Thus it is misleading to state merely that “
several wars were fought by…” I suggest the following
text present a more accurate picture:
In 1948 as the nascent State of Israel defended
itself against five invading Arab armies, hundreds of thousands
of Palestinians left their homes, displaced either by the exigencies
of war or leaving upon the instructions of Arab leaders. Since then
Israel has absorbed a comparable number of Jewish refugees, expelled
from surrounding Arab states, and has had to fight several defensive
wars against surrounding Arab countries - Egypt, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon
3.
In 1979 Egypt and Israel signed a peace agreement,
but it wasn't until the early 1990s, after years of an uprising
known as the intifada, that a peace process began with the Palestinians.
Despite the hand-over of parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
to Palestinian control, a "final status" agreement has
yet to be reached.
Notwithstanding that the majority of the West Bank
territory was under Palestinian control (much of which has been
retaken since 2000 due to Palestinian terrorism) over 95% of the
Palestinian population came under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction
by virtue of the Oslo Agreements which recognised PA control in
over 40 areas of civil government- including an armed police force.
My suggested amendment in green to your your text
is:
"In 1979 Egypt and Israel signed a peace agreement,
but it wasn't until the early 1990s, after ….an uprising known
as the intifada, that a peace process began with the Palestinians.
Despite the hand-over of the majority of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip territory to Palestinian control and Palestinian exercise
of civil jurisdiction (including policing) over almost all (95%)
of the West Bank and Gaza Arab population, a "final status"
agreement has yet to be reached."
4.
The main stumbling blocks include the status of
Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian refugees and the removal of
Jewish settlements.
The Major stumbling block to peace is continued
terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens and Arab refusal to recognize
that Israel- as a Jewish state - has a right to exist. For the Arabs,
Jews may be permitted to reside in territory which is claimed to
be part of the Arab world (dar Islam)- but only as second class
citizens- dhimmi's. (see Bat Ye'Or, The Dhimmi:Jews and Christians
Under Islam, Fairleigh Dickinson U. Press, London 1985; Bat Ye'Or,
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Associated University
Presses Cranbury NJ, 2002.
“Dhimmitude” is a second rate status
which Jews and Christians have in Islamic culture- and is unacceptable
in contemporary international relations. The UN Charter, recognises
the rights of all peoples to self-determination, expressed politically
in the Nation State. Jews have the same right of self determination
in the form of an independent state in the Middle East (the birthplace
and cradle of Judaism) like Islamic and Christian Arabs. While the
Arabs have 23 states, the Jews have only 1 (and even that is only
the size of Wales).
Another Arab created stumbling block has been the
failure of the Palestinians’ Arab brethren to permit their
rehabilitation. Arab states- supported by the UNWRA- have kept the
650 thousand Palestinians in camps ever since 1948 and, apart from
Jordan, have made no attempt to absorb them. A similar number of
Jewish refugees were expelled from Arab states, leaving much valuable
property behind and have been absorbed by Israel at its own cost
Even Israeli attempts to rehabilitate and re-house
the Arab refugees in the West Bank have been frustrated by the Arab
states and by the PLO. Israel was condemned by the UN General Assembly,
in this regard for fear that such rehabilitation would undermine
the Palestinian claim of repatriation - "Right of Return -
into Israel. (See UNGA Resolution 41/69 E December, 3 1986, in which
the Assembly reiterated its demand that Israel should desist from
the removal and resettlement of Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip
and from the destruction of their shelters)
The Palestinian claim is based on UNGA Resolution
194 para. 11. This states:
The General Assembly …..
resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and
live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so
at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be
paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss
of or damage to property which, under principles of international
law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities
responsible; (note the plural)
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate
the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation
of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain
close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for
Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs
and agencies of the United Nations;
The following points should be noted about Resolution
194:
(i) The General Assembly has no power to grant any
people any rights. It's resolutions are non-binding and only have
the status of recommendations;
(ii) The Resolution is not expressed in terms of
a “right”, but as a “permission”.
(iii) A careful reading of this clause (1 out of
15) does not give rise to an unconditional and general right of
repatriation for all Palestinians refugees to return to their homes
(within Israel).
(iv) Solutions other than repatriation included
in the Resolution and have been ignored by the Palestinians and
their Arab cousins
.
The omission in the website of the Arab-created
stumbling blocks to peace is a clear bias against Israel..
May I suggest that your text be revised as follows:
The main stumbling blocks include the status of
Jerusalem, the removal of Jewish settlements and the return of Palestinian
refugees. This last issue is the most problematical. Palestinian
negotiators insist that all refugees have a right of return to within
Israel. Israel’s fear is the Jewish character of Israel would
quickly disappear in the demographic changes which would inevitably
result if such a return were to be realised.
If space on the website allows, you could add:
[ Palestinians contend that their right is founded
on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israel argues that the Resolution
is a non binding recommendation; the Arab states having rejected
it at the time cannot resuscitate it; conditions have changed since
the resolution was passed, and in any case it has been superseded
by UN Security Council 242 in which the right of refugees to return
is to be determined by negotiation]
5
FACTS
OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA
ISRAEL FACTS Population: 6.4 million (UN, 2003 estimate)
Seat of government: Jerusalem
Why do you deny Israel’s capital city as being
Jerusalem- Designation of a capital city is an act of a sovereign
state. The BBC may not recognise Israel’s annexation of East
Jerusalem, but even before 1967, that part of Jerusalem within Israel
has always viewed and recognised as such as Israel’s capital
by most nations. Your bias is clearly shown in that under "Palestine
Facts" East Jerusalem is designated as the "intended capital".
It is misleading to reduce the status of the capital city of a State
to that of "Seat of Government" while designating East
Jerusalem as the location of an “intended capital” of
a territory which has yet to be recognised as a “state”
among the Nations with all that it entails.
I suggest :
(a) in Israel Facts, the words "Seat of Government"
be replaced by "Capital" and
(b) in Palestinian Facts, change the designation
of East Jerusalem to read "intended Seat of Government"
which is the reality of the situation
Alternatively consistency would permit “Seat
of Government” in Israel Facts and “Intended Seat of
Government” in Palestine Facts.
If you deny the State of Israel’s designation
of Jerusalem as its Capital City- where then is its Capital? It
certainly isn’t Tel Aviv!!
6.
, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv
Major languages: Hebrew, Arabic and English. Major religions: Judaism,
Islam Life expectancy: 77 years (men), 81 years (women) (UN) Monetary
unit: 1 new Israeli shekel (NIS) = 100 new agorot Main exports:
Computer software, military equipment, chemicals, agricultural products,
tourism (until the intafada) Average annual income: US $16,750 (World
Bank, 2001) Internet domain: .il International dialling code: +972
PALESTINIAN FACTS Population: 3.5 million (UN, 2003
estimate) Intended capital: East Jerusalem (see note above: why
not "intended seat of government" Major language: Arabic
Major religion: Islam Life expectancy: 71 years (men), 74 years
(women) (UN) Monetary unit: 1 Jordan dinar = 1,000 fils, 1 new Israeli
shekel (NIS) = 100 new agorot Main exports: citrus Average annual
income: US $1,350 (World Bank, 2001) Internet domain: .ps International
dialling code: +970
7.
LEADERS
OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA
Israeli president: Moshe Qatzav
Prime minister: Ariel Sharon
Born in 1928 in Palestine when it was a British
mandate, Sharon became prime minister in February 2001 after beating
the Labour incumbent, Ehud Barak, in the prime ministerial elections.
He was elected in the midst of the second Palestinian
intifada (uprising), which was sparked off by his controversial
visit to al-Aqsa mosque in east Jerusalem, on a pledge to ensure
total security for Israel.
This second paragraph is misleading. The Mitchell
Report on the causes of the Intafada reject this point conclusively.
Subsequent information disclosed that Arafat gave orders to start
preparing for the Intifada when the Camp David negotiations failed
in July 2000. There is also evidence to show that violence broke
out a day before Sharon went onto the Temple Mount-Har Habayit.
The route Sharon took did not go near the mosque.
The real reasons Sharon was elected and Barak was
defeated, were
(i) Barak’s failure to settle the Oslo "Final Status"
issues,
(ii) Arafat presented no counter proposals and demanding
the right of all Palestinians to return to within Israel and
(iii) Israel's realization with the outbreak of
the Intifada immediately prior to the elections, that Oslo, in the
words of the late Feisal Husseini, was "a Trojan Horse";
that the recovery of the West Bank under Palestinian control was
the first step to replacing a Jewish Israel by an Arab Palestine
in which (a) Arabic would become the official language (Draft Constitution
Article 5); Islam, the official religion (Art 6); and the principles
of the Islamic Shari`a law, the primary source for legislation (Art
7).
I suggest that your text be amended to read as follows:
"Ariel Sharon was elected in the midst of the
second Palestinian intifada (uprising), -------on a pledge to ensure
total security for Israel after having defeating his predecessor,
Ehud Barak, who, failed to reach agreement with the Palestinians
on his proposed solutions to the Oslo final status issues.
8.
Sharon had become closely identified with the invasion
of Lebanon in 1982 when, as defence minister, he sent Israeli troops
all the way to Beirut .
You omit the cause of Israeli incursion into Lebanon-
namely the numerous PLO attacks on Israeli civilian centres of population
in Kiryat Shmone and in Ma’alot. The former town was subject
to terrorist incursions and katusha attacks on an almost daily basis.
The latter town made world headlines on May 15,
1974 when a group of 11th grade school children on a field trip
from Safed were attacked while sleeping in a school by three PLO
terrorists disguised in Israeli uniforms, (perfidy in international
law) who had infiltrated from Lebanon, killed the children’s
guard and stormed the building. When the incident was over, all
the terrorists were dead, but so were 21 children who had been murdered
by the PLO.
I suggest that you add to the end of your text:
"Sharon had become closely identified with
the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 when, as defence minister, he sent
Israeli troops all the way to Beirut in an attempt to suppress PLO
terrorist incursions from Lebanon into Israel "
9.
He was removed from office in 1983 after an Israeli
tribunal which found him "indirectly responsible" for
the massacre of nearly 2,000 Palestinian refugees by Israeli-allied
right-wing Lebanese militiamen.
(i) Sharon was not removed from office;
(ii) 2000 Palestinian refugees were NOT massacred;
(iii) You stress Sharon’s indirect responsibility
but fail to state or even imply many other more important facts
that surrounded the incident
As regards (a) Sharon resigned. “Removal” implies impeachment
or dismissal- neither of which occurred.
In respect of (b), a review of the Kahan Commission
Report www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html shows the number
of refugees killed in Sabra and Shatilla was in the region of 500-
certainly not 2000 (see attachment extract from Kahan) and that
number included both PLO combatants and Palestinian civilians- it
being impossible to distinguish one from another.
As for (c) the following points need to be taken
into account:
(i) Israel had no direct responsibility for the
massacre of Palestinians;
(ii) the massacre had been conducted by Lebanon's
mainly Christian militia, which also included the Phalangists;
(iii) although the Lebanese militiamen were considered
to be Israeli allies, the leader of the Phalangists, Elie Hobeiker
who was directly responsible for the atrocity, was later shown to
be an agent of Syria and acting in its interests; and
(iv) the Phalangist killings of the Palestinians
were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir
Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a PLO bomb attack earlier
that week. (see Elie Hobeika's Assassination: Covering Up the Secrets
of Sabra and Shatilla in Jerusalem Issues Brief, Vol 1, No.17, January
30, 2002)
I therefore suggest that your text be amended as
follows:
He resigned from office in 1983 after an Israeli
tribunal---found him "indirectly responsible for failing to
anticipate and prevent the Israeli-allied Lebanese Christian militiamen
massacring some 500 Palestinian Arab refugees and PLO combatants,
in retaliation for the PLO’s earlier assassination of Lebanese
President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers.
10.
A wealthy cattle farmer, Sharon has a house in Jerusalem's
Muslim Quarter.
What relevance does Sharons wealth have to the profile
of Israel unless it impinges on its status and responsibility as
a state? What relevance is the fact that he has a house in Jerusalem's
Muslim Quarter. If there is relevance why do you not comment upon
Arafat's luxury villa at Ramallah and that fact that his wife and
family is safely ensconced in Paris?
I suggest that this sentence be deleted.
11.
As housing minister in the early 1990s, he presided
over the largest expansion of Jewish settlements since the 1967
war.
“presided” over an expansion is tendentious.
As Housing Minister he was “responsible”
I suggest that the text be revised as follows:
".......Sharon ......as housing minister in the early 1990s,
was responsible for the largest expansion of Jewish settlements
since the 1967 war.
12.
Palestinian leader: Yasser Arafat
Born in 1929 and educated Egypt, Yasser Arafat ran
a successful civil engineering business in Kuwait before setting
up Fatah (Arabic acronym for Palestine Liberation Movement) in 1958.
You have described Arafat in somewhatheroic terms.
However you overlook other characteristics which have a bearing
on his political attitude and behaviour. In a book review by Abd
Raham Koya, www.muslimedia.com/archives/book00/arafatbk.htm
of Said K. Aburish’s biography on Arafat , entitled “From
Defender to Dictator” (Bloomsbury Paperbacks. London, UK,
1999) the reviewer notes that Arafat came from an elite Palestinian
background and his family has grown ever richer. He was not interested
in studies, and barely managed to complete a civil engineering degree;
in his youth he ran a gang of "neighbourhood children"
who employed bully tactics; he had a difficult relationship with
his father, whose funeral he did not attend and whose grave he never
visited. Arafat was also close to Hajj Amin al-Husseini the revered
mufti of Palestine, in the 1940s.
The book turns the popular western perception of
Yasser Arafat upside-down from a heroic freedom-fighter who has
kept the hopes of millions of displaced Palestinians alive to a
narrow-minded operator, out of touch with reality, whose personal
ambitions have led to a rule based on cronyism in which the people
around him are rewarded with jobs and money despite their incompetence.
13.
In 1964 Arafat left Kuwait for Jordan, from where
Fatah began guerrilla raids into Israel. In 1968 he was elected
chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), in effect
putting Fatah at the core of the PLO.
Arafat has survived numerous setbacks.
(The use of the word “setback” implies
that his objectives were to be commended)
In 1970 he was expelled from Jordan.
Why? Because notwithstanding Hussein’s offer
that he should become Prime Minister of Jordan, he tried to destabilise
Hussein’s regime, and to use Jordan as a springboard from
which to launch attacks on Israel- in the same way as he did in
Lebanon.
I suggest the following:
In 1970 he was expelled by Hussein from Jordan for
attempting to destabilize the Hashemite regime
14.
He redeployed into Lebanon, but was driven from
there by Israeli forces in 1982. In Tunisia, where the PLO had set
up its headquarters after leaving Lebanon, he escaped an Israeli
air strike and Israeli death squads. He also survived an air crash
in the Libyan desert and recovered from a serious stroke.
You mentioned Sharon's indirect responsibility for
Sabra and Shatila, but your profile of Arafat makes no mention of
the terrorist atrocities carried out under his direction or with
his approval nor of his speeches in Arabic calling for the annihilation
of Israel.
In particular you ignore Arafat’s direct responsibility as
head of the PLO for its massacre of 582 Christian women and children
at Damour and his attempts to destabalize Lebanon. (see
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/
Parliament/2587/damour.html; www.freelebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobeika_damour.html;
www.lebaneseforces.com/blastfromthepast002.asp);
www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/feb97/letter2.html
I suggest that the following text presents a more
accurate account of Arafat activities in the Middle East than appears
on your website.
Redeploying into Lebanon, Arafat was responsible
for a campaign of violence killing over 40,000 people including
582 Lebanese Christians massacred at Damour in 1976. In reaction
to constant PLO attacks on civilian settlements within Israel, Israeli
forces drove him from Lebanon in 1982 to exile in Tunisia where
he set up the PLO headquarters. There he escaped an Israeli air
strike and Israeli death squads. He also survived an air crash in
the Libyan desert and recovered from a serious stroke.
15.
On 1 July 1994, after 27 years in exile, Arafat
returned to Gaza to take up the post of president of the Palestinian
National Authority (PNA) to which he had been elected by the PLO
Central Committee in October 1993 and confirmed by a plebiscite
in 1996.
Arafat didn’t just “return” to
Gaza. He was permitted by Israel to return to Gaza and the West
bank on the clear understanding that (a) he renounced the use of
terror as a means of resolving his conflict with Israel- which was
thenceforth to be resolved by negotiation (b) that Israel’s
right to exist was to be recognised (to be expressed in an amendment
to the PLO Covenant which called for Israel’s destruction)
and all the other undertakings given in the Declaration of Principles,
13 September 1993 (Oslo I)
After eschewing violence and agreeing to negotiate
as the only means to attain Palestinian independence, on 1 July
1994, after 27 years in exile, Arafat was allowed to return to Gaza
to take up the post of president of the Palestinian National Authority
(PNA) to which he had been elected by the PLO Central Committee
in October 1993 and confirmed by a plebiscite in 1996
16.
Since you referred earlier to Sharon's wealth- which
I believe is irrelevant- why have you not mentioned that of Arafat?
Forbes Magazine this year rated Arafat as no 6 in wealth with an
estimated $300 million! See: http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/068.html
Odd that Sharon appears nowhere in the Forbes listing, yet is deemed
to be 'wealthy' by the BBC while Arafat is not.
If a State leader’s wealth is significance
in that State's profile, then it should have some bearing on state
policy or administration. In the case of Arafat, you don't mention
his corruption and misappropriation of public funds- wealth factors
which do have a direct impact on the Palestinians ability to organise
and manage their internal affairs.
Perhaps you should introduce a one sentence comment
on this topic
17.
But in April 2002 he faced one of his biggest challenges.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared him "irrelevant"
and Israeli troops, who had been surrounding his headquarters in
Ramallah for four months, battered and occupied most of his compound.
However, he survived thanks to international pressure on Sharon
to end his siege.
You imply that Arafat’s confinement and Israel’s
action was without justification. Notwithstanding Arafat’s
Oslo undertakings, your web page ignores completely not only his
refusal to take action to curb the Arab terrorism which he had undertaken
to do under Oslo, but his continuing support, encouragement and
authorisation of terrorism – as evidenced by his direct involvement
in the arms smuggling incident involving the Karina A.
Sharon declared Arafat as irrelevant in the sense
that, Arafat’s actions and speeches of incitement in Arabic
addressed to his own people- rather than his words in English addressed
to the West- show that he cannot be considered by Israel as a partner
for peace.
I submit the following to be a more accurate description
of the situation.
But in April 2002 he faced one of his biggest challenges.
Israel re-entered parts of the West Bank in order to quell the Intifada
and route out suicide bombers. Arafat was confined to his headquarters
in Ramallah where for four months Israeli troops surrounded, battered
and occupied most of his compound. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon declared him "irrelevant" as a partner for peace.
However, he survived thanks to international pressure on Sharon
to end his siege.
18.
For many, Arafat has come to embody the Palestinian
struggle for self-determination.
His critics among the Palestinians, however, accuse
him of running an over-personalised, corruption-ridden administration,
of making too many concessions to Israel and of putting undue trust
in the US which, in their view, had utterly failed to apply the
necessary pressure on Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories.
In March 2003 the Palestinian parliament approved
the creation of the post of prime minister. The move had been demanded
by the US as a condition to begin work on an internationally-backed
peace plan for the region. Deputy PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas was appointed
to the post.
The web text does not reflect the US demans of regime
change untainted with terrorism as a precondition to a renewed US
initiative and there is reason to believe that Arafat still retians
control behind the scenes ( Arafat Remains in Charge, Palestine
Media Centre, 22/05/2003 http://www.palestine-pmc.com/about.asp.)
I suggest the following:-
In March 2003 the Palestinian parliament approved
the creation of the post of prime minister following a demand by
the United States that a new government be formed untainted with
terrorism as a precondition to begin work on an internationally-backed
peace plan for the region. Deputy PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas was appointed
to the post. There is doubt however as to whether Arafat has really
surrendered control.
19.
MEDIA
OVERVIEW | FACTS | LEADERS | MEDIA
ISRAELI MEDIA
Israel's press and broadcasters are many and varied,
and account for differences in language, political viewpoint and
religious outlook.
The Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA), set up
along the lines of the BBC, operates public radio and TV services
and is funded mainly by licence fees on TV sets.
Channel 2 and Channel 10 are the main commercial
TV networks. Most Israeli households subscribe to cable or satellite
TV packages.
Commercial radio arrived in 1995, but faces competition
from a proliferation of pirate radio stations; some 150 were said
to be on the air in early 2003. A proportion of these unlicensed
stations carry ultra-Orthodox programme material.
All Israeli newspapers are privately-owned and several
are available on the internet.
Media watchdog Reporters Without Frontiers reported
in 2002 that although the Israeli government respected the freedom
of expression of the domestic media, press freedoms had been violated
during army operations in the West Bank and Gaza.
Why “violated”? Freedom of the Press
is not unlimited. There are military situations in which the Press
unintentionally (perhaps?) interferes with what is essentially a
life and death situation. The Press does not have immunity in all
cases- their presence in the field of battle distracts forces from
persuing legitimate goals. Furthermore it is claimed that there
have been instances where Arab militia have avoided attack by pretended
to be Press reporters (bearing TV on their vehicles) while continuing
to be involved in military activity- in a manner similar to Palestinian
use of ambulances for the transportation of arms and explosives;
abusing the purported neutrality of Red Crescent symbol.
Suggest replacing the word “violated”
with “restricted” which reflects actuality or “limited”
(the same term as you use for Palestinian control over its press,
which is far far more repressive than that of Israel.)
20.
The Vienna-based International Press Institute reported
in 2002 that "at least 81%" of violations against press
freedom in the West Bank and Gaza since the start of the second
intifada had been carried out by Israelis. Most of the "targeted
journalists" had been Palestinians, it added.
Many of these “targeted” are not really
journalists who seek to publicise what is really occurring in the
West Bank and Gaza- but are PA “minders” who have appointed
to accompany and “assist” foreign journalists in publicising
prepared scenes of what the PA wants the West to believe. There
is a very high degree of probability that the widely publicised
al-Dura incident was in fact a “put up job”, in which
the child- if he was killed at all- was killed by Arab fire. (see
“Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura” The Atlantic June 2003”;
Amnon Lord, Who killed Muhammad al-Dura? Blood Libel 2000 Jerusalem
Letter / Viewpoints
No. 482; 15 July 2002; Alan Keyes -Reports from Israel: sees evidence
of truth about Mohammed al-Dura story http://www.mesora.org/keyes/31.html
31 July 2002
The press
Yediot Aharonot - Tel Aviv-based daily Ha'aretz - Tel Aviv-based
daily Jerusalem Post - daily Ma'ariv - Tel Aviv-based daily Globes
- business daily
Television
Israel Broadcasting Authority - public TV, operates Channel 1 Channel
2 - national, commercial Channel 10 - national, commercial
Radio
Israel Broadcasting Authority - operates public radios, including
speech-based Reshet Aleph, news-based Reshet Bet, music-based Reshet
Gimmel, Arabic-language Reshet Dalet Galei Zahal - Israel Defence
Forces (IDF) Radio, broadcasts news and music to mostly-civilian
audience; also operates music and traffic news network Galgalatz
Arutz 7 - unlicensed ship-based station, promotes views of ultra-Orthodox
groups and Israeli settlers in occupied territories
Internet
Israel has a large IT industry and one of the world's most technologically-literate
populations. Almost two million people had internet access by July
2001.
PALESTINIAN MEDIA
Television is the key medium for news and information
in the Palestinian areas. Satellite dishes are common, and pan-Arab
broadcasters, particularly Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV, are popular among
viewers.
The official radio and TV stations of the Palestinian
National Authority operate alongside dozens of private radio stations
and a handful of private TV stations. Jordanian TV is widely-watched
in the West Bank.
21.
The Palestinian authorities limit freedom of speech
and the security services have regularly shut down media outlets,
banned publication or broadcast of material, and harassed or detained
journalists, including foreign reporters covering the second intifada.
Self-censorship by Palestinian journalists is widespread.
NB Your text is tendentious. Palestinian Authorities
“limit” freedom of speech yet Israel “violates”
press freedom.
Media watchdog Reporters Without Frontiers reported
in 2002 that privately-run and official media outlets had been "at
the service of Palestinian Authority propaganda" since the
start of the uprising.
Palestinian media outlets were badly damaged by
Israeli military operations in the wake of the second intifada.
Radio and TV stations were destroyed, including, in January 2002,
the premises of the Palestinian National Authority's TV and radio
stations in Ramallah. Israel has repeatedly accused Palestinian
TV and radio of inciting violence.
22.
Your text is again tendentious: “repeatedly
accused” implies allegation which may or may not be true.
The reality is that Palestinian TV and Radio as well as sermons
from the mosques do incite violence and hatred for Israel as do
the school books provided by the Palestinian education authority.
The press
Al-Quds - Jerusalem-based, largest-circulation Palestinian daily
Al-Ayyam - Ramallah-based daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah - Palestinian
National Authority daily
Radio
Voice of Palestine - official station of Palestinian National Authority
Television
Palestine TV - official station of Palestinian National Authority
Palestine Satellite Channel - Gaza-based, run by Palestinian National
Authority Private TV stations include Al-Quds Educational TV, Al-Mahd
TV, Al-Majd TV, Al-Nawras TV, Al-Sharq TV, Amwaj TV, Bayt Lahm TV,
Shepherds TV and Watan TV.
News agency
Palestine News Agency - Wafa - in Arabic, English, French and Hebrew
Internet
Around 60,000 people were connected to the internet by March 2001.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm
Published: 2003/05/24 11:26:21 GMT
© BBC MMIII
Dear Mr Adler
Thank you for your message. As your primary concern is to
have text of a website entry changed, I have passed it on
to the relevant editors. They will no doubt want to take
some time to consider your detailed points. If their response
is not to your satisfaction, please feel free to refer the
matter back to me. I'd be grateful, though, if you would
use the e-mail facility which can be accessed on the BBC
website via <serious_form.shtml>.
I'm afraid my management of the in-box of my personal e-mail
address is such that messages addressed to it are in some
danger of languishing unanswered.
Your sincerely
Fraser Steel
|
Latest News
News Archives
Submit News
Sussex Jewish News
The JC
|