OLD PMWATCH

Basic facts vs new myths

2005-03-18T18:35:00.000-08:00

In her March 12 letter “Democracy Goes Forward,” Ann Bardacke questions the facts in the March 5 letter “End Deadly Occupation” by Diane Adkin. Anyone who is honestly interested in the facts of the Palestine occupation has lots of places to look. Start with the New York Times. It has published the stories of the illegal settlements. Look on the web. The Israeli group B’Tselem carefully monitors human rights violations and is considered quite accurate. There are many other sources and most facts can be verified by more than one source.

The best thing anyone can do is go to Palestine and see the facts “on the ground.” Tuesday I returned from Palestine where I visited sites throughout the West Bank. I experienced the checkpoints, the closures, and the apartheid wall. I talked to people whose ancestral land had been taken without compensation, and to others whose homes, gardens, and water systems are under “demolition orders.”

Bardacke’s points about democracy and past events do not change the facts. The State of Israel is today executing an illegal, military, racist program to get rid of the Palestinians and take their land. Peace and justice demand an end of the occupation.

W.W.
Vancouver WA

Letter to the Oregonian

2005-03-14T18:31:00.000-08:00

I was horified to see the recent report on your paper's failure to present a balanced picture of the Israel/Palestine dispute and your failure in most instances to even record the great multitude of Palestinian deaths.

I am sad to say that I find this inadequacy and lack of professionalism to be reminiscent of media in my own country when we were slaughtering large numbers of 'natives', claiming, of course, that they were all terrorists.

The media has a responsibility to readers to see that they are properly informed. Publication of Zionist propaganda in place of news will not help.

Yours faithfully,

C.L.

Quick not to the Oregonian

2005-03-14T18:30:00.000-08:00

Just a note to tell you that PMW's note about the Oregonian's bias against palestinians will keep spreading... and spreading... until you emit an apology and correct your course.

best regards from germany -- D.G.

Letter to TimesOnLine

2005-03-12T18:28:00.000-08:00

I looked in vain for any facts, or even claims, to justify the emotive heading of the article 'Tide of extremism is rising against us, say Jewish students' By Sean O'Neill and Yaakov Lappin. But try as I might, all I saw was condemnation of Zionists for their support of Iaraeli crimes. The Times used to be a responsible paper, not given to encouraging or reporting racism without any evidence.

It is inevitable, and right, that students looking for peace and justice in Palestine(which requires the end of Israeli defiance of international law) should object to and condemn those who support such defiance. This happened with South African students who supported the crimes of apartheid. No-one tried to claim that they were condemned because they were white!

It is sadly too easy for Zionists to refuse to condemn Israeli crimes, except to accuse their critics of anti-Semitism. It is sad to read of a Minister of the Crown being taken in by this but having watched her performance on the new anti-terrorist legislation, I can hardly claim surprise. She does seem more impressed by propaganda than by facts.

Yours faithfully,

C.L.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1521684,00.html

Tide of extremism is rising against us, say Jewish students

Letter to the International Herald Tribune

2005-03-11T18:26:00.000-08:00

I was somewhat surprised to read your article 'Israel, in a shift, wants Syria to leave Lebanon' By Steven Erlanger. It seems to contain as much propaganda as news.

The article claims that Hezbollah is opposed to a possible peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. This is no more than Israeli propaganda, unsupported by any evidence and denied by both Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Immediately following the Tel Aviv bombing, Israel sought to blame Hezbollah but has, as usual, produced no evidence for such a claim and now points the finger, equally without evidence, at Syria.

I have no objection to a responsible newspaper publishing Israeli propaganda but I submit it should say what is and that such claims are denied and are unsupported.

Similarly, I have no objection to you stating that Israel, or US for that matter, has sought to blame Syria for the death of Hariri, but again you should state that such claim is without any supporting evidence. I wonder why you don't?

Yours faithfully,

C.L.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/10/news/jerus.html
Israel, in a shift, wants Syria to leave Lebanon

Letter to Time Magazine

2005-03-07T18:22:00.000-08:00

Dear Sir,

In your published interview of Mahmoud Abbas, the question is raised about President Bush's extraordinary claims about his power to change international law over refugees, settlements and occupation in Palestine. He has no such powers. US may well be the most poweful country the world has ever known but that does not confer rights to change the law at will, nor to reward Israeli crimes, however much Bush might like to believe he has those rights.

He talks glibly about freedom and the rule of law but the two must go hand in hand. There can be no freedom wihout the rule of law for otherwise the world is in a 'might is right' situation.

The law does not confer on anyone, neither Bush nor even Sharon, the right to deny the refugees their rights of return to their original homes and homelands, enshrined in the Universal Declaraion of Human Rights, but sought by Bush and Sharon to be denied because the refugees are not Jews.

The law does not confer on anyone, neither Bush nor even Sharon, the right to build settlements all over Occupied land and to move alien settlers onto that land. This denial is conferred in the Geneva Conventions.

The law does not confer on anyone, neither Bush nor Sharon, the right to acquire land by force of arms, as Israel has tried to do with Arab East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. This denial is enshrined in countless UN resolutions.

It is the rule of law which separates the civilised from the savage.

Yours faithfully,

C. L.

==

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1034717,00.html
Escaping Arafat's Shadow
By MAHMOUD ABBAS; MATT REES; JAMIL HAMAD

Sunday, Mar. 06, 2005

For his first interview with an English-language magazine since taking office in January, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with TIME's Jerusalem bureau chief, Matt Rees, and correspondent Jamil Hamad last Saturday in his West Bank office. After buzzing an aide for a cigarette (he does not carry his own pack, believing, he joked, that "this keeps down my consumption"), Abbas talked for an hour about his challenges.

TIME: What do you think will be the consequences for Palestinians of events in Lebanon?

ABBAS: It's clear-cut. President Assad said he will withdraw. But for us, we don't know yet the consequences. We don't know the demands of the Americans.

TIME: In Washington, many think the growing democracy movement in the Middle East comes from President Bush's pressure.

ABBAS: I don't think that we made democracy because President Bush pushed us. We decided that we should have a democratic process, and we did it without any pressure.

TIME: Now that you've been elected, your progress depends on your cease-fire with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Islamist groups opposing peace. How secure is it ?

ABBAS: I concluded a truce with Hamas when I was Prime Minister. After I became head of the Palestinian Authority, I conducted talks with them, and they accepted without any pressure on them. It is a democracy. We have to deal with them accordingly.

TIME: But when they launch suicide-bomb attacks like the latest one in Tel Aviv?

ABBAS: They said they are not responsible and they'll stick to the cease-fire. All of [the Islamist factions]. Even those that are in Damascus.

TIME: Who was responsible, then, for the Tel Aviv attack?

ABBAS: It was individuals. We arrested five. If you ask me who is responsible, the Israelis are responsible. The bombers came from the suburb of Tulkarem to Tel Aviv, crossing the wall. So who is responsible? The wall and the Israelis.

TIME: Hamas won seats in municipal elections in January. Now the P.L.O. has an opposition?

ABBAS: This is proof that they are going to be a political party, which is good.

TIME: Israelis and Americans are shocked to think Hamas could be in your parliament.

ABBAS: Why not? They should be in the parliament. They will share responsibility. Israel has more than 33 political parties from right to left and in between.

TIME: What's your plan to reach a peace agreement with Israel?

ABBAS: We suggested to the Israelis and Americans to work in back channels on final-status issues while we are working on earlier phases of the road map. If we start now, we have a lot of time to work with the Americans to find ideas, to find compromises. But if we go [without preparation] to the third [final status] phase of the road map, and then we get a make-or-break situation like Camp David [in 2000], it's unworkable.

TIME: President Bush wrote Israeli Prime Minister Sharon a letter saying that in a final deal, there will be no right of return and there will be adjustments to the 1967 borders and the status of Jerusalem.

ABBAS: President Bush doesn't have the right to prejudice final-status issues. These issues should be discussed in the final stages, not now. He can't make commitments on behalf of the Palestinian people. It is our right to say yes or no.

TIME: To get a final-status agreement, do you think you will have to make unpopular decisions, unpopular compromises?

ABBAS: I promise any compromise will go to a referendum. People will accept it or not.

TIME: Do you think you can achieve a deal in one five-year presidential term?

ABBAS: I have to do it because after that I won't be President anymore.

TIME: Yasser Arafat was a symbol for Palestinians around the world. Do you see yourself as a different kind of leader?

ABBAS: There are differences in our ways of thinking. I want to put everything on the table, and you can take it or leave it. Even when I was running for the elections, many friends advised me not to. But I said, "No, I have to tell the people everything. Either they'll elect me or not."

TIME: Are you worried that might anger people? Are there threats against your life?

ABBAS: Everybody is under threat. We are Muslims. We believe that when life comes to an end, it comes.

TIME: It's risky just to be a Palestinian?

ABBAS: It's risky. But it's also risky to be an American. You remember the Twin Towers. So if you believe in God, you won't be afraid.

TIME: You were born in Safad, in what is now Israel. How did it feel when you went back for a visit in 1995?

ABBAS: Very sad. It's my country. I know every street and store. But now I'm not allowed to be there. That's life. I'm not asking for Safad. I'm not asking to return there.

Letter printed in Atlanta Constitution

2005-03-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

The following letter was printed in response to Israeli diplomat Shmuel Ben-Shmuel's article entitled "Palestinians rule prospects for real peace".

The idea that Palestinians — a virtually defenseless, occupied people — are in control of their destiny is laughable. Israel, the region's superpower, holds all the cards in this conflict.

Israeli expansionism is the primary reason for the violence of the past few decades. Israel would have had peace a long time ago had it decided to return the land it took in 1967 and obeyed U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which declares "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

Flouting international law for decades, under the protection of the United States' U.N. veto, and then eventually implementing only a small portion of the U.N. resolution, doesn't demonstrate that "Israel is a country that seeks peace and is ready to pay a high price to achieve it," as Shmuel Ben-Shmuel writes.

Eric Ridenour

On "several weeks of calm"

2005-03-01T06:22:00.000-08:00

A suicide bombing in Tel Aviv “ended several weeks of calm” (2/26/05). “A familiar pattern appeared in danger of re-emerging: a truce, a Palestinian attack, Israeli retaliation, another Palestinian attack…” (2/28/05). These news stories are wrong. The truce and the “calm” were broken long ago.

Since President Abbas assumed office on January 15 till now, 43 Palestinian civilians, including 11 children, have been killed by the Israeli army.

During this “calm” 7838 Palestinians - 379 of them children - sit in Israeli jails, routinely abused, half of them never charged with a crime. The construction of the illegal wall through the West Bank, the confiscation of Palestinian orchards, the demolition of Palestinian homes continue, while Israel adds another 6000 new homes to major settlements. During this ‘truce’ the daily horrors of occupation - arrests, checkpoints, total curfews
imposed on communities - continued for every Palestinian.

The unreported deaths of Palestinian children in Hebron and Ramallah 2 weeks ago, and other violent incidents in the Occupied Territories are just as criminal as the deaths in Tel Aviv. They are all murder.

There is a way out of this conflict: end the Israeli occupation of
Palestine, and US funding of that occupation. Justice will end the
violence.

Camas, WA

Letter: ignoring violence against Palestinians

2005-02-27T16:28:00.000-08:00

(Letter to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times)

Dear Sir,

I am dismayed to read your biased coverage of recent events prior to and including this blast in Tel-Aviv in which 4 Israelis were killed, for this attack hardly matches the violent and murderous actions of the Israeli government in the period after the "landmark" cease-fire was signed. These actions include the murder of 12 Palestinians this month alone, the murder of 100 since the death of Arafat, the continued construction of the so-called "security barrier", the confiscation of Palestinian land by this barrier and by the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories (the Israeli government has decided to build 6000 new homes in West Bank settlements), which is contrary to Bush's Road-map, and numerous other violent activities. Thus, the Palestinian-Israeli "calm" that your paper purports and that this attack supposedly shattered was entirely Israel's, and so your paper has failed to point out Palestinian suffering adequately.

Sincerely,
Namir

Letter to the Baltimore Sun: Double standards

2005-02-26T12:23:00.000-08:00

Dear Sir,

Re: Suicide bombing in Tel Aviv breaks Mideast cease-fire

The Tel Aviv bombing was terrible but was it more terrible than the killings of the 12 Palestinians who have been slaughtered by IDF this month or the well over 100 Palestinians who have been slaughtered since President Arafat died? Why does your paper place so much emphasis on selected items of tragedy? It is as if you did not regard the Palestinians as people with the right to life, as if the killing of Palestinians does not 'break' the truce?

The Israelis have tried to 'cash in' on this killing, blaming both Islamic Jihad and Hezbullah and demanding that the 'militants' be disarmed, although there is no evidence of any involvement. Hezbullah has never been involved in activity in Palestine although your article claims, without evidence, that it has been attempting to 'disrupt the peace efforts' . This sounds more like Zionist propaganda than professional journalism. Islamic Jihad have denied involvement. No militant group is claiming responsibility, as they normally do. The killing benefits only Israel.

Letter sent to: letters@baltsun.com

Ashford, England

"Shattering the truce"

2005-02-26T11:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends,

As many of you have probably already seen, much of the American press is describing today's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, as "shattering the truce." What they fail to mention is that 8 Palestinians have been killed and 36 injured by Israelis since the truce was declared (http://www.palestinercs.org/Database/Date/df.pl?din=8&moin=02&yin=2005&dout=25&mout=02&yout=2005). Clearly the truce was "shattered" when Palestinians continued to be killed immediately following the declaration of an end of violence.

Also, check out several recent additions to our website about what this truce really means:

How Israel Is Once Again Redefining the Terms of Peace --
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/sharm.html

What Does the Cease-Fire Mean? -- http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/cease-fire.html

www.IfAmericansKnew.org
914 Westwood Blvd., #235
Los Angeles, CA 90024
310-441-8580

New Ombudsman at The Washington Post

2005-02-26T11:43:00.000-08:00

Newhouse News Service's D.C. Bureau Chief to Be Paper's Independent Critic

By D'Vera Cohn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A02

Deborah Howell, the Washington bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News Service, was named ombudsman of The Washington Post yesterday, a job in which she will serve as independent critic of the newspaper on behalf of its readers.

Howell will take over the job later this year from Michael Getler, 69, who became ombudsman in November 2000. He had served for a quarter-century as a Post reporter and editor, followed by four years as editor of the International Herald Tribune.

Letter to the Washington Post: The Rule of Law

2005-02-25T12:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Sir,

Re: Israel Draws the Line

I am puzzled why your paper gives credibility to a commentator with the kind of racist views that Charles Krauthammer endorses in his article 'Israel Draws the Line'.

In the very first paragraph he makes the ludicrous claim that Israeli compliance with international law (after defying it for nearly forty years) by withdrawing from the Occupied Territories in Gaza, viewed in isolation, would be 'a victory for terrorism'. Come again? Is his view of the rule of law so distorted that he can make such a claim? And your paper feels a need to give the ludicrous credibility? The rule of law is what separates the savage from the civilised. There had to be a question which side Mr Krauthammer occupied.

I was not in doubt for long. For he continued his article applauding the new line of the illegal 'wall' being built on Palestinian land, apparently believing it is alright because it is not as illegal as before, it steals less Palestinian land! Of course, the law doesn't work like that.

There is no prospect of any long-term peace, as even President Bush has made clear, unless there is contiguous Palestinian land, and unless all settlement activity stops. As usual, Israel is treating both the law and President Bush with contempt. And Krauthammer applauds.

I do understand there are people who are essentially racist and share Krauthammer's views. I do not understand why the Washington Post gives them credibility.

Letter sent to: letters@washpost.com

Ashford, England

Letter to the New York Times: Sharon's "courage"

2005-02-24T12:32:00.000-08:00

Mr. Sharon's Giant Step

Dear Sir,

It is a sad reflection of the tenuous grip which the State of Israel has on democracy and the rule of law that Sharon's largely symbolic and irrelevant 'withdrawal' from Gaza can be regarded as evidence of 'enormous political courage'.

Facing reality can seldom be regarded as courage, only common sense. There are 8,500 illegal settlers in Gaza out of 450,000+ illegal settlers throughout the Occupied Territories, many of whom would certainly not have been there but for Sharon's encouragement. Perhaps it does take courage to face up to greed and stupidity in the past. But much, much more will be required if these crimes are to be reversed so that justice is served and peace can prevail.

I am very concerned at the racist conclusion of your article and the necessity for "the Palestinians to show the world that they can govern themselves." The Palestinians are people like you and I. There is not the slightest doubt, except in the minds of racists, that they can govern themselves. The days when this kind of imperial patronage was acceptable are long since past.

Letter sent to: letters@nytimes.com

Ashford, England

Letter published in The Daily Telegraph

2005-02-21T12:36:00.000-08:00

Letter to the editor

Sir, George W Bush's recommendation that the EU and America should work together to promote freedom and democracy (News, Feb 19) is completely meaningless, given that our concepts of freedom and democracy are so different.

Europe doesn't believe that America has some divine mission to rule the world, to make decisions for others. It doesn't see international law and the Geneva Conventions as applying only to others.

For Europe, democracy means that we all decide together â€“ not that America does what it likes, ignoring the international community on global warming, on the International Criminal Court and more. Our histories may be similar, but our aims are different.

Christopher Leadbeater, Ashford, Kent

Letter to New York Time: The Wall and the International Court of Justice

2005-02-02T06:19:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr Myre:

Thank you for covering Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz's order for the Sharon government not to carry out the confiscation of East Jerusalem property owned by Palestinians living in the West Bank.

You correctly point out that "the building of Israel's separation barrier has drawn strong international criticism." However, the barrier has received much more than just international criticism. It has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.

You also correctly point out that "Property rights have been an explosive issue since Israel's founding in 1948. In the Israeli-Arab war that year, many Palestinian landowners fled or were driven from property that became part of Israel. Two years later Israel passed the Absentee Property Law, which has allowed the state to seize thousands of homes and parcels of land owned by Palestinians. Israel has paid compensation in only a tiny fraction
of those cases."

However, I think it's important to note that more than 700,000 (not just "many") Palestinians, while fleeing for their lives, still hoped to eventually return to their homes and their land when peace was restored. According to reports, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion opposed the return of the Palestinian refugees while at the same time organizing massive Jewish immigration encouraged by Israel's "Law of Return," which gives Jews from
anywhere in the world the right to Israeli citizenship while denying the same to the Palestinian refugees who had lived on the land for generations.

If you are not familiar with the story of Deir Yassin and you have a moment, I encourage you to check out Deir Yassin Remembered
http://www.deiryassin.org/index.html

Sincerely,
KR - a Times reader in NJ

PMWATCH's rejoinder

2004-11-24T04:56:00.001-08:00

Dear David:

Thanks for the note.

Thank you for explaining how things work. But
explaining a process does not justify it.
Systematically reproducing on your web site something
that you would not print should not be something that
your paper should tolerate -- no matter what other
papers may be doing. At the very least, you should
feel uncomfortable serving as a dissemination tool for
something you believe is journalistically faulty.

As far as we are concerned, anything that appears on
the Post's web site is the Post's responsibility, and
we reserve the right to call you on failures on your
part to live up to your own standards.

I am glad to learn, though, that printing "disputed
West Bank" straightout in a news item would, according
to your second paragraph, does qualify as an error. Which
means that the Post should issue a correction on this
item, since "disputed West Bank" was indeed printed on
page A16 of your Saturday edition of The Post.

Looking forward to your response.

Ahmed Bouzid
Executive Director
Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org/
(866) 434-3195

Post editor's rejoinder

2004-11-24T04:56:00.000-08:00

Dear Ahmed,

We put all the wires automatically on the web site.
They are on hundreds of other web sites too. If you
have a problem with something in a wire, then I
suggest you go to the source. We do not edit them on
the web site.

We edit everything published in the paper. This
includes wires. Once in a while something slips
through, but on the point you are interested in, we do
not call the West Bank and Gaza disputed, but rather
we call them occupied, and we have since 1967.

David Hoffman

PMWATCH response to Post editor

2004-11-24T04:55:00.000-08:00

Dear David:

Thank you for your note.

We are glad to hear that as a rule The Post does not
use the phrase, "disputed West Bank" when referring
the West Bank.

However, this does not address the basic question of
YOUR responsibly as a news organization to ensure that
any news disseminated under your aegis is up to your
proclaimed standards. I don't believe that you meant
in your email that if it comes from the wires, you
absolve your paper from responsibility over content,
whether it is published by your web site or your
printed edition. Perhaps you meant that you have less
control over content when the wire is published over
the web, and that the editing and vetting process is
much more stringent and careful when it comes to the
printed version, and that you can only ensure that the
phrase would not be replicated on the printed version
of the Post?

Please clarify your statement. As things stand as of
now, we do not believe that our media alert to our
readers was erroneous or misleading.

Thank you,

Ahmed Bouzid
Executive Director
Palestined Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org
(866) 434-3195

Foreign Editor of The Post responds

2004-11-23T18:10:00.000-08:00

David Hoffman, Foreign editor at The Washington Post, sent us this. Note the absence of any sense of responsibility. Note also that the man is wrong: the designation "disputed" was indeed used on the print version of their paper. A scan of the page will be posted in our web site. Stay tuned.

===

Hi,

I am the Foreign Editor of The Post.

Your e-mail alert is wrong.

We do not use "disputed" territories in our news coverage. Perhaps you
saw this in a wire story posted on our web site. If you have a
complaint with this, you should address the wire service. We post these wires
as a reader service. We do not generate them, and do not publish them
except in some cases -- and when we do, we edit them to our standards and
style.

Please inform your readers that your alert was wrong.

Thanks,

David E. Hoffman
The Washington Post

Ombudsman unreachable? Try the media critic.

2004-11-23T08:28:00.000-08:00

Washington Post has an in-house media critic, Howard Kurtz. Try contacting him and telling him the paper's ombudsman is impossible to reach (and therefore useless).

kurtzh@washpost.com

Impossible to get hold of The Washington Post's ombudsman

2004-11-23T04:48:00.000-08:00

Many PMWATCH activists have told us that they have been unable to get hold of Michael Getler, The Washington Post's Ombudsman, via phone. Apparently, even his voice mail box is full. So much for someone at the Post whose priority is to relay public concerns to the paper.....

Michael Getler's phone number is: (202) 334-7582. His email address is: ombudsman@washpost.com