AP Misleads on Judaism’s Holiest Site

A July 27, 2004 Associated Press article by Dan Waldman about the blocked attempt of an extreme Jewish group to enter the Temple Mount (Har Habayit ) on Tisha B’av, a holiday which commemorates the destruction of the two Jewish temples which stood on that site, misled readers both about the mount’s significance and its history in Judaism.

The article, which was carried on the New York Times Web site, as well as other news outlets, referred to the Temple Mount at various times as “a site taken over by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war,” “a disputed Jerusalem holy site under Muslim control,” an “ancient site,” and the “11-acre elevated plaza known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram a-Sharif.”  (Nowhere in the article is the Hebrew name, “Har Habayit” mentioned.)

Waldman fails to make clear that the Temple Mount is actually Judaism’s holiest site, giving that distinction instead to the Western Wall. While the Western Wall is the holiest site where  Jews are permitted to regularly pray,  it derives its holiness from its proximity to the Temple site.

Jewish reverence for the Temple Mount predates the building of the Muslims’ Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque. In fact, the Temple Mount’s holiness predates even the First Jewish (Solomonic) Temple, which was built, according to Jewish tradition, on the Even Hashtiya, the foundation stone upon which the world was created. According to Jewish belief, this is the epicenter of Judaism, where the biblical Isaac was brought for sacrifice, where the Holy of Holies and Ark of the Covenant housing the Ten Commandments once stood, and where the Temple was rebuilt before being destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. While Waldman leaves out these fundamental Jewish beliefs, he does write in the third paragraph: “Muslim tradition says the site is where the Prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven.”

The Western Wall is a remnant of the outer retaining wall built by Herod. Jews have prayed at the Western Wall for the last few hundred years because it is the closest accessible place to the holiest site.

Can the BBC Change?

Over the years, the BBC has come under harsh criticism for unbalanced, anti-Israel reporting (See CAMERA analyses: cameramainsite.dev.neptuneweb.com/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12). Charges of partisan and inaccurate reporting are routinely ignored, dismissed, or more often denied by BBC directors. In March 2002, British lawyer Trevor Asserson launched his BBC Watch site ( with an in-depth study of domestic BBC coverage of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He concluded that it was frequently inaccurate and subjective. Further studies documented an anti-Israel bent in BBC coverage, the most recent demonstrating that BBC television documentaries on Israel are routinely negative. Although BBC responded to some of these concerns, its editors, at the same time, denied evidence of partiality.

While BBC has made no public mention of Mr. Asserson’s studies, nor of any other documented example of partisan reporting against Israel, it has, on the other hand, displayed an unusual alacrity in publicizing a study charging it with a pro-Israel bias. BBC 4 aired several interviews with the study’s author, the network’s Web site ran two separate articles describing the study’s findings, and the World Service weighed in with a discussion on the topic.

The Study by University of Glasgow Media Unit

The study claiming pro-Israel bias, authored by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the University of Glasgow Media Unit, is summed up in a book entitled “Bad News from Israel,” (London, Pluto Press, 2004). Focusing on British television – BBC1 and ITV– news reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the study concludes that the coverage leans heavily toward Israeli government perspectives and favors Israel over the Palestinians. The authors suggest that reporters do not apportion sufficient blame to Israel for the conflict. They object to scant mention of what they believe is the origin of the conflict. According to the study:

TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict….Most [viewers] did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. In 1967 Israel occupied by force the territories to which the Palestinian refugees had moved. Most viewers did not know that the Palestinians subsequently lived under Israeli military rule or that the Israelis took control of key resources such as water, and the damage this did to the Palestinian economy…

In presenting this distorted version of the conflict, the authors draw upon the writings of Avi Shlaim, one of a group of radical Israeli historians who have attempted to rewrite Israel’s history to suggest the country was born in original sin. Shlaim wrote a book accusing Jordan and Israel of collaborating to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. His specialty is blaming Israel in general, and in promoting the idea of a mass expulsion of Palestinians during the Israeli War of Independence in 1948-49. And while Shlaim’s writings and those of other radical historians have been discredited by scholars, they have been embraced and publicized by pro-Palestinian advocates.

Why then is BBC so eager to publicize such a study?

Very likely the network seeks to counter the preponderance of accusations against it of anti-Israel bias, and perhaps the negative image of Israel is shared by many at the BBC.

Witness the reaction of former BBC correspondent Tim Llewellyn (also an executive board member of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding — CAABU, and of the Arab British Centre in London) who enthusiastically endorsed the findings of the study in an article in which he asserted:

That 37 years of military occupation, the violation of the Palestinians’ human, political and civil rights and the continuing theft of their land might have triggered this crisis [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] is a concept either lost or underplayed. (The Observer, June 20, 2004)

That BBC had for decades employed as its Middle East correspondent this overtly partisan player is telling indeed.

So too is the following example from the public notes of the BBC Governors Programme Complaints committee ( July 2004) which demonstrates the mindset that prevails from the bottom to the top of the organization. A complaint was sent to BBC’s Director of News about a segment of the Julian Worricker programme in which Security Correspondent Frank Gardner made clear his pro-Palestinian view that:

Theirs [ the Palestinians ] is essentially a territorial fight to liberate their land from illegal occupation. People should understand that Israel is illegally occupying Arab land. It is against UN resolutions, and the transportation of a civilian population into occupied territory and then colonising it is illegal under the Geneva Convention. (January 23, 2004, BBC 5)

The listener argued that these comments by a BBC correspondent were inaccurate as well as biased, misapplying the Geneva Convention to Israel, erroneously portraying Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza as illegal, discounting the avowed goal of Palestinian terrorists to annihilate the Jewish state, and misrepresenting UN Resolutions 242 aand 338, which require Israel to withdraw – not from all the territories – but to secure and recognized boundaries, and only when the Arabs recognize Israel’s right to exist (which most Arab states do not).

The news director’s response was characteristic. First, he trotted out Gardner’s credentials as a veteran Middle East reporter, as if that placed the journalist above criticism. Asserting that Gardner is “neutral” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he brought as proof the reporter’s condemnation of suicide bombings — a position, he noted, which had incurred the wrath of “some of the more extreme sections of the Muslim world.”

A summary of Gardner’s own justifications followed, relying on highly politicized, anti-Israel documents and resolutions, and reaffirming his reliance on UN Resolutions 242 and 338, without addressing the inherent discrepancy between his own interpretation and their intent. Gardner apologized for using the word “transportation” instead of “transfer” of the Israeli civilian population into occupied territories.

The listener objected to this response, appealing to the Director General of the BBC who in turn referred the complaint to the Governors’ Committee responsible for upholding the network’s guidelines of accuracy and impartiality.

After considering the complaint, the committee decided not to uphold the appeal and instead expressed satisfaction with the reporter’s comments on the show. The committee noted that while the issue of Israel’s occupation was complex and UN resolutions frequently vague and ambiguous, “many in the international community regard the Israeli occupation as illegal.” Furthermore, they insisted that since the settlement of the Occupied Territories are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Gardner’s comments “did not represent a breach of BBC guidelines on accuracy.” Regarding the reporter’s references to “Palestinian” land and “Arab” land , the committee ruled that these terms were in accordance with “the language of UN resolutions.” And while the committee acknowledged that there are those who claim the Palestinian aim is the eradication of Israel, it indicated that Gardner had qualified his observation about the territorial aims by saying it was “essentially” a territorial fight.

Not only does this perspective accept Palestinian allegations at face value and rely on biased resolutions and documents indicting Israel, it places those attempting to hold the network to its own guidelines in a conundrum as they fruitlessly try to reason with an organization that defines “impartiality” and “accuracy” according to its own worldview.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in BBC’s hiring choices. In order to train journalists in “BBC standards of impartiality and accuracy,” BBC’s World Service Trust hired Ibrahim Helal away from his job as editor-in-chief of the Arabic satellite TV network Al Jazeera. Significantly, it was under Mr. Helal’s helm that Al Jazeera was severely criticized for inflammatory, false and inaccurate reports. It was Helal who had authorized the broadcasting of controversial anti-Western propaganda by Al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and Helal who had approved the screening of footage of US and British soldiers captured and killed during the Iraq war. It is noteworthy that since Helal’s departure to the BBC, Al Jazeera has released a new code of ethics to ensure more balanced and sensitive reporting.

And what about the BBC?

Scapegoating Israel and the U.S.

BBC continues to produce articles, reports and documentaries unfairly criticizing and condemning Israel, while at the same time whitewashing Palestinian responsibility for the conflict. BBC correspondents regularly editorialize in news reports, ask leading questions, and insert their own opinions unhindered. And these opinions, more often than not, count Israel as the primary culprit aided and abetted by the U.S.

Israel is a scapegoat not only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in reports on issues completely unrelated. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, BBC correspondent Jim Muir offered the Arab view that Israel was at the root of the crisis and questioned whether the perpetrators were Arab or Muslim. Speculating that Israel would take advantage of the situation for its own nefarious purposes, Muir used the opportunity to attack Israel explaining that:

The fact is that for more than five decades, in defiance of countless UN resolutions and of international law, the Palestinians’ land has been occupied and their rights ignored by Israel, with full diplomatic cover and open-ended financial and military backing from Washington. (“Analysis: Impact on the Middle East, BBC Web site, September 12, 2001)

More recently, a May 6, 2004 World Service news report featured BBC host Claire Bolderson questioning the Arab League’s ambassador in London about remarks by President Bush concerning prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Despite its complete lack of relevancy to the issue at hand, Ms. Bolderson nevertheless sought to interject Israel into the conversation, implicating U.S. support of the Jewish State as the “real” problem in the Middle East. Bolderson charged:

Is the real problem not so much the photos and the allegations of these serious abuses but the United States’ attitude toward Israel and the Palestinians?

Can BBC Change?

Given the entrenched anti-Israel attitude among BBC correspondents, with the tacit approval of its governors, can the BBC change?

With BBC’s Royal Charter up for renewal at the end of 2006 and its recent credibility troubles –the Hutton Commission’s harsh criticism of the organization’s journalistic breaches and the resultant replacement of its Director-General and Chairman — the BBC has had to re-examine its role in broadcasting, its accountability to the public and its direction for the future. In the new BBC document putting forth its plans for the future, entitled Building Public Value ( the corporation both acknowledges that “historically the BBC has resisted criticism,”and publicizes its intention to “shortly introduce a new system for dealing with complaints from licence payers, to ensure objectivity, fairness and transparency.” Outlined more specifically:

The BBC will begin with the presumption that the licence payer is right. A new Head of Complaints will report directly to the Board of Governors. We will make it much easier to make complaints about BBC programmes and services and will publicise the procedures more widely on TV, radio and online. We will publish all errors, clarifications and corrections promptly on the BBC’s website. We will also set out for complainants –– and for serious upheld complaints, for the public at large –– the actions the BBC will take to correct the error and minimise the risk of it recurring…. Our proposals will shortly be laid out within a new Code of Practice and implemented as soon as possible. The BBC will be a stronger organisation for recognising where it is wrong and taking clear steps to put things right.

The document pledges that “BBC will be a guarantor of impartiality and independence, enabling people to make sense of this fast-changing agenda” and will “offer a place where a plurality of voices and opinions can be given space and where rational debate can be held.”

While the BBC’s record provides reason for skepticism, perhaps such new awareness of journalistic accountability offers an opportunity for real redress. British BBC consumers have a fresh chance to participate in “rational debate”— to politely engage BBC journalists in dialogue and to gradually effect a positive change in the reporting.

As for global World Service News consumers, they too can have an impact. In Building Public Value, the BBC promises to build “BBC’s reputation as the world’s most trusted broadcaster of news” and as “the trusted global voice of British broadcasting.” BBC, therefore aims to “play a valuable role as a voice of fairness and impartiality around the world,” and “to increase the reach and standing of the BBC’s global news services.”

American consumers can help ensure that BBC World Service reports are accurate, balanced and unbiased. by engaging BBC directly through complaint channels, as well as through local public radio affiliates that carry BBC, PRI (Public Radio International) that distributes World Service reports, and members of congress who control the public radio funding. Those who care about how Israel is viewed internationally should make their voices heard.

Letter-Writer Wrong on Barrier Statistic

In his July 7 letter to the Los Angeles Times entitled “Wall’s Horrific Effect,” Eugene O’Carroll makes the unsubstantiated claim that Israel’s barrier “will absorb as much as 60 percent” of the West Bank.

That figure quadruples the barrier’s actual projected impact on West Bank land. As the Los Angeles Times has repeatedly reported, even the United Nations, hardly a pro-Israel body, put that number at 14 percent. On July 1, Laura King correctly reported: “The U.N. said in a report last year that by pursuing the planned route, Israel would expropriate 14 % of the West Bank” (“Israel’s High Court Puts a Dent in West Bank Barrier”).

The Times had previously reported on the U.N.’s findings on Nov. 12, 2003 (AP, “U.N. Says Wall Gives Israel 14 % of West Bank”) and on Feb. 22, 2004 (Ken Ellingwood, “Fence Leads to Heart of a Great Divide”).

Spreading misinformation condemns the region–in O’Carroll’s words–”to decades more of violence, suffering and instability.”

Reuters and AP Echo Hezbollah

July 20, 2004

Reuters and Associated Press covered the slaying of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists on July 20, 2004 in reports that could have come straight from Al Manar, Hezbollah’s main propaganda engine.

According to Israeli newspapers, two IDF communications technicians, Itai Iluz and Avishai Korisky, were fired on by a Hezbollah sharpshooter the morning of July 20 while they were repairing an antenna on the roof of an outpost in Western Galilee. The attack on the outpost, located 200 meters from a Hezbollah position across the Lebanese border, came while the Israeli army was on high alert following the killing of a Hezbollah official in a Beirut car bombing for which Hezbollah blamed Israel. Israel denied inolvement. The two wounded soldiers were extricated from the area under cover of rifle and tank fire, supported by IAF helicopter gunships, but died of their injuries. The army responded by shooting toward the direction of the sniper fire, killing one Hezbollah gunman and destroying the position, and an Israeli helicopter struck a Hezbollah position, wounding three gunmen. Hezbollah fired anti-aircraft shells, hitting and setting a fire in a northern Galilee moshav. The Israeli army spokesman called the Hezbollah attack “a continuation of the chain of provocations by the terrorist organization that is operating from within the state of Lebanon.”

Reuters

But in an article entitled, “Three Die as Hizbollah and Israelis Clash,” Reuters Lebanon-based correspondent Hussein Saad called the Hezbollah-initiated sniper attack part of a “border clash” while focusing primarily on Israeli retaliatory actions. According to Saad, the terrorist snipers were merely “guerillas” who “lost one of their own fighters in border clashes, a day after the group accused Israel of killing a top Hezbollah member.”

Reversing the order of events, the Reuters reporter first devoted several paragraphs to Israel’s response as if it were the primary event, then presented the slaying of the soldiers as an Israeli claim in one sentence in the fourth paragraph. He wrote:

The Israeli army said two of its soldiers were killed by Hizbollah fire while repairing equipment on the roof of their post near the southern border.

It is only in the second half of the story that readers are told:

There were conflicting accounts of Tuesday’s clash in the south. Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizbollah said it began when Israeli forces shelled its positions by the town of Eita al-Shaab. Israel said Hizbollah had started the fighting and that the Israeli army would continue to operate against any party “involved in terrorism against Israeli citizens”.

Then back to Al Manar mode with Hezbollah PR, as the journalist informs his readers:

Hizbollah played a key role in forcing Israel to end its 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in May 2000.

An earlier article by the same reporter recorded the shooting of the Israeli soldiers as an afterthought, while focusing on Israel’s response. Under a title calling the terrorists “Lebanese guerillas,” Saad wrote:

Israeli forces killed a Hizbollah fighter in a clash on the Lebanese border on Tuesday, a day after a Hizbollah official was killed in a Beirut bombing the group blamed on Israel. Two Israeli soldiers were also killed in the fighting, Hizbollah’s al-Manar television reported. The Israeli army declined comment, citing censorship rules.

Associated Press

The AP coverage of the same events was even worse. Readers were never even informed that the two dead Israelis were killed by Hezbollah snipers, let alone that the Hezbollah attack prompted the Israeli response.

Published separately under two different bylines (Bassem Mroue and Joseph Panossian), it was not clear who actually wrote the July 20, 2004 article,”Three Killed as Hezbollah, Israelis Clash”. What is clear, however, is that this lopsided piece of journalism obscured the facts throughout.

There were only two mentions of Israeli casualties in the entire article, the first in the introductory sentence which suggested Israeli soldiers initiated the hostilities:

Israeli soldiers clashed with Lebanese Hezbollah guerillas along the border Tuesday, leaving two soldiers and one guerilla dead and prompting an Israeli general to threaten Hezbollah and its sponsors –Syria and Iran.

The second mention came in an ambiguous sentence that also focused on Israel’s response. According to AP, the soldiers were not killed, but simply “died” and even this was presented as a claim by Israel. The reporter wrote:.

The Israeli army said two soldiers died Tuesday and helicopter gunships attacked Hezbollah positions.

By contrast, the article not only specified that the Hezbollah casualty was a victim of the Israeli army, but devoted no less than eight paragraphs to charges against Israel. Repeated over and over again were the same charges by various Lebanese representatives, including the foreign ministry, security officials, Hezbollah’s media chief, and from a Hezbollah statement, making it appear that Israel had launched numerous attacks against Hezbollah instead of responding in the way it did.

Hezbollah confirmed one guerrilla was killed. Witnesses in southern Lebanon said two Israeli helicopters fired two rockets at guerillas near the border village of Aita Shaab, about nine miles southeast of coastal Tyre. Later, an Israeli helicopter staged a raid in the same area, security officials said.

The Lebanese securtiy officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an Israeli tank fired on a Hezbollah position near Aita Shaab, killing one guerrilla.

Hezbollah returned fire across the border. Israeli helicopter gunships later fired back, the officials said.

A Hezbollah statement said the guerrilla was killed by Israeli tank shell [sic] targeting a Hezbollah observation post near Aita Shaab late Tuesday morning.

Israeli helicopters then atacked another observation post at nearby Ramia, but there were no casualties or damage, Hezbollah said.

The militant Shiite Muslim group vowed it would “choose the time and place for a deterrent response to make the enemy understand that aggression against the security and blood of our people would be very costly.”

“The Zionist enemy is fully responsible for what happened and what is happening in Lebanon,” Sheik Hassan Ezzeddine, Hezbollah’s media chief, told The Associated Press.

It (Israel) is the side that moved the battle out of its natural frame in Chebaa Farms.”

The article briefly paraphrased the Israeli position once more, casting doubt on it with the use of scare quotes:

In Israel, Maj. Jacob Dallal of the military spokesman’s office said Hezbollah shot first at an Israeli border post and military action responded to the “provocation.”

Again, there was no mention that Hezbollah not only “shot first,” but also fatally struck Israeli soldiers..

AP and Reuters editors should inform their reporters that echoing a terrorist group’s propaganda arm is not ocnsistent with the policies of these global agencies, which pledge to be impartial and accurate.

Reuters articles:

“Three Die as Hizbollah and Israelis Clash” by Hussein Saad, July 20, 2004

“Israeli Forces, Lebanese Guerillas Exchange Fire,” by Hussein Saad, July 20, 2004

AP article:

“Three Killed as Hezbollah, Israelis Clash” by Joseph Panossian or Bassam Mroue

Arafat Loyalists Intimidate the Press

Jerusalem Post correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh has chronicled the difficult circumstances journalists face in the Palestinian-run territories. Most recently, he reported that the Arafat-affiliated Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS) warned Palestinian journalists to stop covering marches by gunmen in Gaza and clashes between rival groups. (“PA Bans Press from Arab Clashes,” July 21, 2004). The syndicate, run by Arafat loyalists, ordered the journalists to limit their coverage to those issues and events “that consolidate the internal front and national unity.” Any reporter or photographer found violating the ban was threatened with severe punishment.

Matthew Kalman, reporting in the Toronto Globe and Mail, similarly describes press intimidation by Arafat and his cohorts and the ban by the syndicate. The ban effectively prevents international news outlets from covering events in Gaza, since they depend on Palestinian photographers, reporters and editors to produce news footage and written copy for broadcasters, print media and wire services.

The last time such threats were issued was in September of 2001, when Palestinian reporters were forced to suppress images of huge street celebrations in Nablus and Bethlehem after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The bureau chiefs of internatational wire services, including Reuters and Associated Press, were warned that their cameramen would be in danger if their footage was broadcast in the West.

In May 2004, New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet was the victim of an attempted kidnapping by Palestinians in the Rafah section of Gaza. In a May 20, 2004 article, Bennet briefly mentioned this, relating that the previous evening, he had been grabbed by two men and shoved into a car, before his cries for help were answered by nearby Palestinian policemen. PA officials, joined by their allies in the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, however, quickly sought to do damage control by denying the event had occurred. Members of the syndicate claimed that they had “looked into the case” and had found Bennet’s claims to be “baseless.” According to their “investigation,” the “gunmen had only wanted to check [Bennet’s] identity.”

These brave journalists should be commended for risking their safety to inform readers about what is happening in the Palestinians territories. Coverage of the pressures on journalists may also enable members of the public to read between the lines when they come across stories about events in the Palestinian controlled areas.

Fairness Overdue

In addition to following the Arab-Israeli conflict in television, newspaper, magazine and Internet accounts, millions of Americans also turn to library books.

And like the mass media, libraries make important choices – such as which books to purchase – that either promote accurate, balanced information or trip into the minefield of bias.

Librarians rely in part for title selections on the recommendations of such well-known book reviewers as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews and Library Journal, each of which generates thousands of reviews every year on myriad topics.

A look at Middle East-related commentary produced by Library Journal, however, suggests a striking pattern of laudatory, uncritical endorsement of patently one-sided books written by extreme critics of Israel. Frequently, these come with sweeping recommendations encouraging their acquisition by “all public and academic libraries.” Describing itself as the “oldest independent national library publication,” the Journal claims to be read by “over 100,000 library directors, administrators, and others in public, academic, and special… libraries.” That’s cause for concern.

Here, for example, are a few of the publication’s effusive endorsements. Ilan Pappe, a spokesman for Israel’s Communist Hadash party (and whose writings are discounted by most mainstream academics) won Library Journal’s unalloyed praise for his recent A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. The review cited the “increasingly harsh conditions imposed by the realities of Israeli policies in the occupied territories” and “highly recommended [the work] for academic and public libraries.”

Reviewing the book for The New Republic, Benny Morris, the most prominent of the so-called “new” Israeli historians, noted Pappe’s fierce anti-Israel agenda, and observed that he is “one of the most outspoken Israeli advocates of a Western boycott of Israel’s universities.” Morris panned the book itself as well, saying “much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication” tainted by his unabashed injection of politics. Of New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid, an essay collection with a Forward by Noam Chomsky, Library Journal wrote: “A balanced and up-to-date picture for today’s world; highly recommended for academic and public libraries.” Among contributors to the volume were such inveterate anti-Israel voices as Edward Said, Sara Roy, Robert Fisk and Azmi Bishara.

In contrast, Publishers Weekly wrote: “The tragedy at the World Trade Center will make most readers shudder at any attempt to justify terrorism, which may cut into the book’s already limited audience of confirmed leftists…” The reviewer noted that the book is “unabashedly pro-Palestinian (and largely anti-Israeli and anti-US)” and “written to increase sympathy for the Palestinians.”

Books by far-left author Baruch Kimmerling assailing Israel are given blanket praise in Library Journal. For instance, its reviewer terms Politicide: Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians “timely” and “essential for those interested in going beyond the headlines.” Again, Publishers Weekly cautions readers that the “well-known leftist” academic is “polemical,” and “some may wonder why he looks at Sharon with a much more jaundiced eye than at Yasser Arafat.”

Two recent biographies critical of Arafat by mainstream Israelis elicit altogether different treatment from Library Journal. The works by Efraim Karsh and Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin are cast as limited in value, with the observation that “the more complex biography of Arafat has yet to be written.” The reviewer says of Karsh’s Arafat’s War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest that it is written “from a pro-Israeli perspective” presenting the Palestinian leader’s “purported dream of destroying Israel.” The Karsh and Rubin works get a lukewarm recommendation only “for large public libraries.”

Publishers Weekly offers counterpoint, saying of the Karsh book that it “may be the most comprehensive account yet of certain events,” and that it is “well argued, fast-paced and engaging…” The reviewers term the Rubins’ work a “sober account” offering “strong evidence not only that Arafat has a long history of duplicity, but more interestingly, that he has repeatedly made gross errors of judgment.”

Revisionist historian Avi Shlaim’s The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, denouncing “intransigent” Israeli policy as the primary cause of the ongoing conflict, is praised by Library Journal as “highly original and objective,” and is “highly recommended for academic and public libraries.” On the other hand, Publishers Weekly faults Shlaim’s “double standard” in his one-sided assailing of Israel and exonerating of Arab conduct, and declares: “This is not” a “comprehensive, balanced history.” Kirkus Reviews finds that Shlaim “never solidly establishes his difficult thesis in this lengthy history.”

And so it goes. Unabashedly pro-Palestinian volumes and apologetics for anti-Israel terrorism are cast as non-partisan, balanced, informative and “essential” reading. Amira Hass, Edward Said, Raja Shehada, Rashid Khalidi, Wendy Pearlman, Cheryl Rubenberg and other producers of one-sided and often plainly false depictions of Israel are showered with superlatives, and libraries are “highly” encouraged to stock their writings.

Whether such bias in Library Journal reviews is inadvertent or a conscious policy, the publication is obviously not providing the “expertise” and “intellectual integrity” it claims to offer. For librarians interested in balanced and objective reviews of books on the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is “highly recommended” that they look elsewhere.

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post on July 19, 2004.

WASHINGTON POST-WATCH: Molly Moore Encourages Empathy For Palestinain Terrorists

It would be hard to invent a better example of what’s wrong with Washington Post coverage of Arab-Israeli news than the paper’s July 19, 2004 front-page story. The headline is “In Jenin, Seven Shattered Dreams; Boyhood Hopes Forged on Theater Stage Dissolve in Reality of Intifada.” Post correspondent Molly Moore presents Arab murderers as youths who lost their way amidst destruction and death precipitated primarily by Israelis. The only Israelis presented with any of the human touches Moore lavishes on Palestinian subjects are an utterly unrepresentative mother-son pair, one of whom justifies Arab terrorism.

By its subject matter, its dominance of the front page, prominent color photographs and full-page continuation, “In Jenin, Seven Shattered Dreams” typifies the factual inversion and psychological bias that distorts much Post Arab-Israeli reporting. Again, a major dispatch, of dubious news value, portrays Palestinian Arabs as victims, Israeli Jews in general as aggressors.

The Set-Up

Moore reports on “seven neighborhood boys who bonded on the stage of an experimental theater group” in the glow of the 1993 Israeli-Palestine Liberation Organization accords. But in 1995 its Israeli backer died and the project failed. Simultaneously, says Moore “the hopes stirred by the Oslo peace agreement collapsed into disappointment throughout the Palestinian territories. Mounting frustration gave birth to the current intifada in September 2000.” The boys, in Moore’s lachrymose style, took “the tortuous journey from childhood ambitions acted out on a stage of dreams to manhood in a secret society of Palestinian suicide attackers and armed fighters.”

Now, four are dead — terrorists killed by Israel, though Moore never accurately describes them — one jailed, one unemployed and the last, Mahmoud Kaneri, a stonemason. Moore’s focal point, Kaneri is “a towering man with limpid eyes the color of rich toffee.” Romance novel descriptions like that of Kaneri have become a cliché in Moore’s Palestinian features. More important is her assertion that “creating headstones for the fallen is his therapy.” It illuminates The Post’s non-journalistic, social worker approach to Palestinian Arabs, an approach that treats dead terrorists as “the fallen.”

The Slant

Moore claims that Palestinian “hopes collapsed into disappointment.” In reality, Palestinian violation of the Oslo Accords and related agreements destroyed an almost euphoric Israeli belief that peace was at hand. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Palestinian Authority refused to eliminate terrorist organizations like those which Kaneri’s boyhood pals joined. Palestinians refused to end anti-Israeli incitement in schools, mosques and in PA television, radio and newspapers. They failed to demilitarize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Instead, the PLO and PA collaborated with terrorists, intensified incitement, and connived in the proliferation of weapons.

Terrorist attacks including suicide bombings rocked Israel within months of Oslo, not only after September 2000. The “mounting frustration” Moore cites as a cause for the last four years of violence is psycho-babble; Arafat’s rejection of a state on 97% of the West Bank and Gaza, including eastern Jerusalem in exchange for peace with Israel sparked the current terror war against the Jewish state.

Not Journalism

Moore’s dispatch follows two days of Post coverage of anti-Arafat turmoil in the Gaza Strip, reportedly led by younger members of Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of Arafat’s own Fatah group. Even that coverage minimized or ignored criticism by representatives of the United Nations and European Union of the Palestinian leadership for corruption and lack of interest in peace-making. Moore’s desolate coming-of-age narrative of a Palestinian band of brothers lets The Post change the subject altogether, avoiding news in favor of the paper’s psychologically rigid view of Arab-Israeli matters in which peace-loving Palestinians are battered into being reluctant terrorists through Israeli brutality. Hence the final quotation praising terrorism, or what this most unrepresentative Israeli calls “fight[ing] for their rights,” from the son whose mother launched the Palestinian experimental theater:

“From my perspective, it’s a success that people stood up and fought for their rights,” said Mer Khamis, who said he recently lost his contract to work in Israeli theaters because of his pro-Palestinian sympathies. “Arna [his mother] told them to fight for their rights.”

CAMERA Prompts CSM Correction: Efrat Not an Outpost

In a July 9 “Reporters on the Job” segment, the Christian Science Monitor erroneously described the West Bank town of Efrat as a “settler outpost.” In a July 14 letter to International Editor David Clark Scott, CAMERA noted that Efrat, with a population of about 7000, is one of the most established communities in the West Bank. The town is part of the Gush Etzion bloc, which was established in 1943, only to be destroyed by the Jordanian Legion in 1948 and rebuilt by Israelis in 1967. The bloc is widely expected to remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement.

Peace Now’s Web site defines an outpost as “any area, (generally on a hilltop), with a number of structures, that is totally separated from the closest permanent settlement.” Acknowledging that Efrat is one of these “permanent settlements,” Americans for Peace Now lists Givat HaTamar West as an outpost, and names Efrat as its “mother settlement.”

In response to CAMERA’s email about the error, Mr. Clark Scott thanked CAMERA for “bringing it to [his] attention,” and today the paper printed the following correction:

Not an Outpost: In this column on July 9, under the title “Principles in Conflict,” we erroneously described a West Bank town where Ben and his Peace Now guide stopped for refreshments. Efrat is a large, well-established settlement under Israeli law.

CAMERA acknowledges Honestreporting.com for their work in publicizing the error.

UPDATED: CAMERA Obtains Corrections on Sharon Plan at AP, Several Newspapers

July 16 update follows.

July 14–On July 8, in an article about the latest news in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Josef Federman of the Associated Press erroneously reported: “By September 2005, Sharon plans to pull all Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.”

Sharon has no plan to pull all troops from the West Bank, though he does plan to redeploy troops from four Israeli settlements in the northern West Bank. Several North American newspapers ran the article with the error the next day. In response to communications from CAMERA, the Associated Press and two newspapers have since set the record straight.

The Philadelphia Inquirer corrected yesterday:

An article in the July 9 Inquirer erred in describing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to withdraw troops from the West Bank. Under the plan, troops would be withdrawn from four West Bank settlements.

The Chicago Tribune corrected today:

A story on Page 3 Friday reported incorrectly that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans to pull all Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by September 2005. The plan does not call for a general troop withdrwal from the West Bank. However, it would withdraw all Jewish settlers from Gaza along with the soldiers who guard them. In addition, it would evacuate four isolated settlements in the West Bank and redeploy the soldiers guarding them.

The AP sent out the following correction today:

In a July 8 story about Israel’s plan to pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip, The Associated Press erroneously reported that Israel is also planning to pull out of the West Bank. The plan only calls for a limited withdrawal from West Bank settlements.

July 16 Update: Three More Corrections

Yesterday, the Las Vegas Review-Journal corrected:

In a July 8 story about Israel’s plan to pull out of the Gaza Strip, The Associated Press erroneously reported that Israel also is planning to pull out of the West Bank. The plan calls for a limited withdrawal from four West Bank settlements.

Also, the San Francisco Chronicle corrected yesterday:

An Associated Press story published Friday erroneously reported that Israel plans to pull all its soldiers out of the West Bank. The Israeli plan calls for a limited withdrawal of residents and military guards from four West Bank settlements.

The Boston Globe today corrected:

Because of an error by the Associated Press, a story on the July 8 World page about Israel’s plan to pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip incorrectly reported that Israel is also planning to pull out of the West Bank. The plan calls for only a limited withdrawal from four West Bank settlements.

Hague Ruling Front Page News; Palestinian Attack Takes Second Place

No sooner did the Hague’s International Court of Justice (on Friday, July 9) rule Israel’s security barrier illegal and unjustified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security, than Palestinian terrorists associated with Yasir Arafat’s Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade (on Sunday, July 11) claimed responsibility for a Tel Aviv terrorist bombing which killed a 19-year old Israeli and wounded 20 others.

Palestinian Reaction
Despite the claim of responsibility by his group, Arafat condemned the bombing and suggested that Israel itself staged the terrorist attack within its own borders in order to discredit the International Court of Justice ruling.

Israeli Reaction
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the court’s non-binding ruling, saying the bombing sends a deadly message that encourages terror and prevents countries from defending themselves.

Several Israeli-Arabs who had hitherto rejected Israel’s security fence went on record to voice support for Israel’s security barrier and to question the Hague’s ruling.

(“Some Arab Israelis find fence beneficial,” by Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service)

Media Coverage

Most major print media outlets covered the Hague’s court ruling in front page articles, but did not accord the same attention to the terrorist attack.

The major newspapers varied in the amount of context given and in the emphasis of the article. Most named the Israeli victim of the Palestinian terrorist attack. The notable exceptions were the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Boston Globe. Some portrayed the bombing as an excuse for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s to defy international law. Below is a round-up of how major newspapers presented the bombing as aftermath to the ICJ ruling.

New York Times

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “Major Portion of Israeli Fence is Ruled Illegal”		Headline:“Bombing in Tel Aviv Kills a Soldier and Wounds 20 Israelis”
Placement: Front Page		Placement: Page A10
		While the article by Greg Myre was relegated to the back of the front (international) section, the article is accurate. It named the victim, included a photograph of Israeli mourners, as well as details about Arafat’s outrageous implication that Israelis were behind the bombing, and the reaction of an Israeli Arab who voiced support for the fence. The article quoted Mr. Sharon’s rejection of ICJ opinion that “completely ignores the reason for the construction of the security fence –murderous Palestinian terrorism.”

Washington Post

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “U.N. Court Rejects West Bank barrier. Israel says security fence will stay.”		Headline:“Attack shows need for wall, Sharon says. Court ruling condemned after fatal blast in Tel Aviv.”
Placement: Front Page		Placement: Page A10 (first page in World section)
		The article by John Ward Anderson focused primarily on Prime Minister Sharon’s reaction to the bombing as a consequence of “the deadly message that encourages terror on the one hand and prevents countries from protecting themselves on the other, ” but whitewashed the Palestinian reaction.While it quoted a second tier politician (chief of staff to Qurei) condemning the attack as “a counterproductive terrorist act,’ it said nothing about Arafat’s blaming Israel. Nor did it include information about Israeli Arabs who support the fence. The article named the Israeli victim.

Chicago Tribune

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “Judges condemn W. Bank barrier; Palestinians say non-binding ruling highlights injustice of the wall; Israel argues world court has no jurisdiction and work will continue”		Headline:“Sharon defies world court; Blames barrier ruling for fatal Tel Aviv bombing”
Placement: Front Page		Placement: Page A3
		The headline and the article by Joel Greenberg portrayed the bombing as secondary to, or an excuse for what is described as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “defiance” of the Hague ruling. The article did, however, include Arafat’s accusation and the reaction of a wounded Arab who said he now supports the fence. The victim was named.

Philadelphia Inquirer

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “U.N. court: Israeli fence violates law; The surprisingly tough opinion urged that it be torn down. Israel gave no sign it would comply. “		Headline:“Citing Tel Aviv attack, Sharon says fence to stay; A bus-stop blast killed a soldier. The prime minister linked it to last week’s U.N. court ruling.”
Placement: Front Page		Placement: Page 4
		This Associated Press article by Josef Federman focused on Ariel Sharon’s defiance of the Hague’s ruling and his linkage of the bombing to it. This is one of the few articles that did not identify the victim. It referred instead to the killing of “a soldier” whereby suggesting that this might have been a military rather than a terrorist attack in nature. The Palestinian reaction, as well, was whitewashed, described only as “Palestinian officials condemned the attack. “˜We are against all bombings like this,’ Arafat said.” Arafat’s implicating Israel in the bombing was ignored and nothing was mentioned about Arabs supporting the fence.

Boston Globe

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “World Court Rules Israeli Barrier Illegal”		Headline:“Sharon says bombing shows need for barrier. Tel Aviv attack is first inside Israel in months”
Placement: Front Page		Placement: Page A6
		The Washington Post article (mentioned above) was used in shortened version, omitting identification of the Israeli victim.

Los Angeles Times

Hague Ruling		Palestinian Terrorist Bombing
Headline: “World Court Says Israel Should Demolish Barrier; The nonbinding ruling calls the West Bank fortification a ‘de facto annexation’ of land that violates the rights of Palestinians.”		Headline:“Israel to Move Ahead on Barrier; Sharon points to a deadly Tel Aviv blast in condemning the world court’s ruling calling for the demolition of the West Bank divider.”
Placement: Page. 5		Placement: Page 3
		The article identified the victim, included information on the Arab victim who supported the fence, but omitted Arafat’s accusation against Israel and referred only to Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei condemning the bombing, “saying such violent acts threatened to undercut the legal victory won at The Hague.”