CAMERA Prompts AP Correction on Temple Mount Visit

In response to CAMERA’s communication with Associated Press editors, the wire service today corrected an error and a misrepresentation about Ariel Sharon’s September 2000 visit to the Temple Mount. The article, datelined Damascus and entitled “Palestinians in Syria demonstrate to mark 5th anniversary of uprising,” was on the wire today. The original and updated, improved versions follow:

Error (AP, 9/28/05): The uprising followed a Sept. 28, 2000 visit by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then in opposition, to the al Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s most sacred sites in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Correction (Updated story same day): The uprising followed a Sept. 28, 2000 visit by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then in opposition, to the Aqsa Mosque compound, one of the holiest sites in Islam. The compound also is sacred to Jews as the site of the ancient Jewish temples.

(It should be noted that the Temple Mount is the most sacred site in Judaism.) Corrections on wire stories the day they appear on the wire are especially valuable and reflect a proactive achievement, because the following day newspapers around the world will print the correct information and not propagate the misinformation.

AFP Promotes Propaganda on Gaza Water Issues

“Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing,” advises the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists, an organization dedicated to “improving and protecting journalism.”

An Agence France Press article by Safaa Kanj last Friday, Sept. 23 failed to do just that, and as a result the article about water shortages and contamination in Gaza suffered from one-sidedness, distortions and factual inaccuracies (“Crisis looms for water-starved Gaza Strip: experts”).

Unanswered Allegations

Unfortunately, the experts consulted for this story were only on the Palestinian side, and they (aided by Kanj’s own additions) wrongly blame Israel for water shortages, sub-standard contamination facilities, and an almost dry water table. Israeli experts were not permitted the opportunity to respond. For instance, Kanj interviews Shdaddad al-Atili, water and ecological affairs advisor to the Palestinian Authority, who alleges: “Israel has not authorized us to import water from regions outside Gaza.”

Shlomo Dror, spokesman for the Coordination of Activities in the Territories, who serves on a joint committee of Israeli and Palestinian officials to deal with Gaza water issues, told CAMERA that Palestinians can bring just about anything they want through Gaza now that Israel has withdrawn from the territory, including from the Philadelphi border with Egypt. “If they want to bring water from Egypt, probably they will do it. They can buy anything they want from around the world,” he points out, adding that the Egypt-Gaza border has become an entry point for all varieties of arms.

It should be noted that Egypt has so far refused to supply water to the Palestinians, despite the fact that Egypt has a plentiful supply from the Nile  (Egypt’s per-capita water consumption is the second highest in the region, just behind Syria’s).

Kanj also asserted that: “Israel has offered to sell [the Palestinians] desalinated water for one dollar per cubic meter, which the Palestinians find too costly.” Contrary to Kanj’s implication, Dror stated that the Palestinians have in fact agreed to purchase water from Israel’s Ashkelon desalination plant mostly using money contributed by the United States, at the same price for which the water is sold to Israelis (despite the fact that Palestinians don’t pay taxes which end up in the coffers of Mekorot, Israel’s national water company, while Israelis do).

Kanj also wrote: “The team [of UN environmental experts] is also to investigate the possible presence of industrial pollutants in the water table and the burying of solid waste at Israeli settlements that were evacuated in August.” Had Israelis been consulted, they would have responded, as Dror did, that the Israeli agreement drawn up with U.S. Special Envoy James Wolfensohn stipulates that all dangerous materials had to be evacuated as part of the withdrawal. “Maybe we missed some spot here or there,” speculated Dror, but if that is the case then those oversights will be noted in an upcoming report by the Americans, and the waste will be removed into Israel.

In another Palestinian allegation against Israel which receives no Israeli response, Kanj reports:

Palestinian water expert Said Abu Jalala said another area of focus [in a United Nations investigation] will be the impact of sand mining by Israeli companies.

“Tens of thousands of tons of high-quality sand have been taken about of Gaza by the Israelis for their industrial glass and building needs, thereby depriving the water table of its natural filter,” Jalala says.

Dror confirmed that while some sand was removed with proper licenses, Israeli criminals have stolen large amounts of sand both from Gaza and within Israel. Nevertheless, had Kanj been writing an objective report on Gaza’s water problems he would have notified readers that Palestinian criminals and vandals are just as problematic as their Israeli counterparts. For instance, a June 18, 2004 report in the Jerusalem Times, an independent Palestinian weekly, reports:

The Municipality of Gaza recently warned local, international and environmental media from the expected collapse [sic] and destruction of one of the strategic serviceable establishments in Gaza. The collapsing of the sewage treatment water tank will convert Gaza province into a catastrophic area that will affect the Palestinians’ health and environment.

The municipality’s representatives said that some vandals were able to remove (steal) the sand surrounding these huge establishments for commercial use . . . .

[Palestinian general manager in Gaza municipality Mohammed Akram] Halas said that this huge sewage waste water tank is considered as a national priority and called on the local Palestinians to stop from removing and transferring the sand surrounding the tanks, in which these sand retaining walls were erected to protect the reservoirs from possible collapsing of the tanks to reduce possible risks on the Palestinians . . . .

The Palestinian general manger of the water and sewage waste water department in the Gaza municipality, Engineer Hazem Tarazi, mentioned that the tank is considered a vital part for using the waste water and treating it. . . . (“Vandals Undermine Sewage Operation”)

Other Omitted Information (All of It Damaging to Palestinians)

Ignoring Palestinian sand thieves wasn’t Kanj’s only serious omission which slanted the story against Israel. While the article put the onus entirely on Israel (mostly incorrectly) for water scarcity, the reporter ignored any information which implicated the Palestinians or which portrayed Israel in a positive light.

Thus, the AFP writer ignores the fact that when Israel turned over control of most of Gaza to the Palestinians in 1993 under the Oslo Accords, the Israelis left behind a water treatment plant. The Palestinians, however, opted to stop operating the site. Likewise, when Israel pulled out the settlements last summer, they left behind the wells and facilities to clean water which accompanied each settlement. (As has been widely reported, 20 percent of the greenhouses that Israel left behind were destroyed by Palestinian hooligans, so it remains to be seen whether the water facilities will share this fate.) In addition, around 5 million-cubic-meters of water per year for Palestian use is pumped from Israel into Gaza via the Kissufim pipeline.

While Israel had full control over Gaza before 1993, it enforced laws against illegally digging wells. The Palestinian officials, however, did not crack down on illegal well digging, leading to the phenomenon which Kanj described (but without assigning blame on the lax Palestinian authorities):

Some 4,300 wells are allowed by law, but another 2,400 have been dug without permission, illegally draining 70 million cubic meters (2.4 billion cubic feet) from the already law water table, Atili said.

The extra drainage has the effect of making the drinking water saltier.

Moreover, Palestinians waste their own water, and are therefore responsible for their own shortages, because they use potable (drinking) water for agricultural purposes. In contrast, Israel conserves by using treated waste water for a substantial part of its agriculture, and also extensively uses drip agriculture (which it pioneered) to get water directly to the root-zone. This minimizes waste due to watering too wide an area, and also minimizes evaporation.

Finally, Kanj ignored entirely another serious looming environmental problem caused by Palestinian dumping of treated waste water, as opposed to recycling for agriculture. In a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice, Prof. Steve Brenner, the head of the Department of Geography and Environment at Bar Ilan University, warned:

The current situation in Gaza City, with more than one million residents, is to discharge the domestic sewage into a holding pool north of the city where the wastewater slowly percolates into the ground. As the population of the Gaza Strip grows, it is clear that an alternative disposal system will have to be established and it is more likely that the choice will be discharge into the sea. Until the present, this has not occurred due to the environmental controls and restrictions enforced by the State of Israel.

Upon the Israeli withdrawal from this region, nothing will prevent the Palestinians from switching to the very simple and attractive option of ocean disposal. If this is not properly planned, assessed and monitored, the dire consequences for Israel will be the equivalent of an ecological time bomb. . . .

There is little doubt that any effluents discharged into the sea off the coast of Gaza will spread northward into the territorial waters and the coastal zone of Israel.

Will Kanj or AFP be issuing a report based solely on the research of Brenner and other Israeli experts about the ecological time bomb that Israel faces thanks to the Palestinians’ reckless water practices?

See also CAMERA’s backgrounder, “Does Israel Use Palestinian Water?”

WASHINGTON POST-WATCH: Editorial On Target

The Washington Post’s editorial "Bad Start
in Gaza" (September 15) deserves to be read and praised. This is
noteworthy since it represents a break with Post editorials and
commentaries through the preceding two months (see, for example, CAMERA’s
August 29 Washington Post-Watch, critiquing the editorial "Mr.
Sharon’s Resolve" [August 18]).

"A Bad Start in Gaza" stresses, in an accurate,
timely way, that:

* "Only days after the final withdrawal of Israeli
forces, the Gaza Strip is on the verge of anarchy. Despite promises to impose
law and order, the Palestinian Authority has allowed mobs of looters and armed
extremists to rampage …".

* "Despite a formal agreement with Israel to maintain
security, Egypt has allowed thousands of Palestinians to illegally cross its
border, including rifle-brandishing militants."

* "If it is not quickly checked, the disorder will
destroy Palestinian hopes that the Gaza transfer will become a step toward
statehood."

* "This week’s events further undermine the claim
of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he can impose democratic rule of
law in Gaza without directly confronting armed extremists groups such as Hamas
and Islamic Jihad."

* Israel still has "legitimate security concerns"
regarding the Gaza Strip, including maintenance of internal order by the PA and
proper control of the frontier by Palestinian, Egyptian and Israel forces.

* "Unless Palestinian and Egyptian leaders take
immediate steps to fulfill their commitments in Gaza, they will bear the
responsibility for a new stalemate – or worse – in the Middle
East."

Departing from its pattern of transferring the
responsibility for successful Palestinian governance in Gaza to Israel, the
Postfinally addresses the ability and/or willingness of Abbas and the
PA, and the Egyptians, to fulfill their obligations.

Yes, the editorial does worry that "In Israel,
continuing disorder [in the Gaza Strip] will give a boost to hard-line
challengers to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the Gaza
evacuation." And it notes that "Sharon probably will reiterate …
that Israel will consider no more territorial withdrawals or other concessions
to the Palestinians until militant groups are dismantled." The Post
column does not dismiss the position it expects Sharon to take,.even while it
specifies PA and Egyptian failures.

And though the editorial continues to blindly insist on
labeling Palestinian terrorists as militants, it makes a small concession to
reality, also terming terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad
"armed extremists groups."

In some ways, "Bad Start in Gaza" is a tacit
correction of "Mr. Sharon’s Resolve." The Post should be
commended on the improvement.

New York Times Reports Palestinian Obligations as Israeli Demands

In his story on upcoming Palestinian elections, “Israel to Disrupt Palestinian Vote if Hamas Runs,” (Sept. 17, 2005), reporter Joel Brinkley portrayed as a unilateral Israeli demand what is in fact a Palestinian obligation under the Oslo Accords to bar terror groups from elections. In a further display of bias Brinkley ignored all other Palestinian obligations under the various peace plans as well, but did note an alleged Israeli violation of the Road Map.

Brinkley began his article by informing readers that:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon vowed Friday to withhold Israeli cooperation from Palestinian legislative elections in January if candidates from the militant group Hamas take part.

“We will make every effort not to help them,” he said at a meeting with journalists in New York. “I don’t think they can have elections without our help.”

Mr. Sharon said Israel could choose not to remove roadblocks and checkpoints that would block Palestinians from the polls and make it hard for Palestinians in Jerusalem to vote, among other steps, if Hamas, which calls for Israel’s destruction, takes part.

His remarks stunned Palestinian leaders. Hamas is taking part in municipal elections now under way and has made clear its intention to field candidates in January.

Palestinian leaders could be stunned by Sharon’s statements only if they share the New York Times’ apparent amnesia regarding solemn Palestinian commitments under Oslo. Annex 2 of the Interim Agreement, for example, clearly requires the Palestinians to bar terror groups like Hamas from the electoral process:

Article III – Qualification and Nomination of Candidates

2. Nominations

The nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions will be refused, and such nomination or registration once made will be canceled, if such candidates, parties or coalitions:

(1) commit or advocate racism; or

(2) pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or nondemocratic means.

The racism of Hamas is clear both from its terrorist actions targeting Jews and from its charter, which incorporates numerous anti-Semitic canards, including:

With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it. (Hamas Charter, Article 22)

While its racist charter alone is enough to bar Hamas from the elections, it is also excluded by the second clause regarding use of unlawful means. As Brinkley notes in his article:

Hamas leaders have taken responsibility for some of the deadliest suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in recent years.

If suicide bombings against civilians are not “unlawful means,” then what would be?

Unfortunately this was not the end of Brinkley’s dereliction – he ignored other solemn Palestinian obligations under Oslo as well. For example, he reported “peace deals” between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, while neglecting to tell readers that any such deal was yet another Palestinian violation of the Oslo Accords. Here is what Brinkley reported:

But Mr. Abbas has signed a peace deal with Hamas and a similar group, Islamic Jihad, and says the best way to ease them away from violence is to urge them into the political mainstream. Israeli and American officials say that until the groups give up their arms and renounce terrorism, they have no place in the democratic process.

Here is what he ignored – under Article 14 of the Interim Agreement:

3. Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

4. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I.

Thus under Oslo, the Palestinians were obligated to dismantle the armed group Hamas, not reach “peace deals” with it.

Of course, this obligation to dismantle terror groups was not just an Oslo requirement, it was also restated in the more recent Road Map. While Brinkley ignored that Palestinian obligation in the Road Map, he didn’t ignore the document entirely. In fact, he was all to happy to mention the Road Map when he could allege an Israeli violation regarding settlement expansion. Here in its entirety is what Brinkley had to say about the Road Map:

The prime minister took another position that is sure to please many on the political right at home while irritating Washington: He said Israel would not freeze settlement-building in the West Bank until the final negotiations with the Palestinians years from now, “when we are talking about borders.”

“The settlements will be the last phase,” he said.

The peace plan, or “road map,” that the United States and its allies proposed in 2003 and which Israel has endorsed, calls on Israel to freeze settlement growth as one of the very first steps. Several times on Friday Mr. Sharon repeated that he supported the road map and intended to follow it.

And here is just one of the many Palestinian obligations in the Road Map that Brinkley omitted:

Palestinia
ns declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

By ignoring Palestinian obligations under the various peace plans, and by reporting only an alleged Israeli violation, Brinkley undoubtedly leads many readers to believe that only Israel has obligations under these plans, and that therefore only Israel is to blame for the absence of peace. Brinkley may well believe this false picture, but as a journalist he has an obligation to keep such views out of the news pages.

While there’s no doubt the PA routinely violates its peace-plan obligations, by publishing Brinkley’s skewed and inaccurate dispatches the New York Times violates its journalistic obligations to avoid bias and give readers the full truth.

IHT Fabricates Purpose of Bush-Sharon Meeting

The International Herald Tribune, owned and published by the New York Times, has taken a page from the Times‘ book of journalistic wrongdoing.

Here’s the history: As earlier reported by CAMERA, the Times‘ Joel Brinkley and Steven Weisman distorted virtually all of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statements about Israel and the Palestinians in an exclusive interview Aug. 17. While Rice repeatedly indicated that the Bush Administration would not pressure Israel into more concessions after the Gaza withdrawal, Brinkley and Weisman reported that she said just the opposite. (The Times later backtracked from this misreporting, but has yet to correct.)

Enter the International Herald Tribune, which uses numerous news stories from the Times, but frequently edited slightly differently and often shortened. (The Tribune has its own editors and an earlier deadline than the Times.)

Today the Tribune runs a shortened New York Times story under the byline of David Sanger. (The story, as it appears in the Times, is attributed both to Sanger and to Warren Hoge.) Entitled “Step up terror fight, Bush tells UN,” the Tribune version makes an astounding assertion about President Bush’s meeting yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon–one that does not appear in the Times version or any other media report for that matter:

Bush moved from his speech to a meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, one intended to press Sharon to move beyond the return of the Gaza to the Palestinians, and to begin to move on the West Bank. The two men took no questions, and Sharon said little in public beyond thanking Bush for working toward peace.

In contrast to the Tribune‘s contention, numerous other media reports make clear that Bush deliberately did not press Sharon on West Bank settlements, and instead used the meeting to praise Sharon and assert that it is the Palestinians who must take the next step. Indeed, even the Tribune itself goes on to provide a quote from Bush, one which undercuts the false charge that Bush’s intention was to pressure Sharon on the West Bank, and which instead puts the focus back on the Palestinians:

“One thing is essential, and the world must hear, that now is the time for Palestinians to come together and establish a government that will be peaceful with Israel,” Bush said. “Gaza is a good chance to start, and I know that the Israeli government wants to see that happen, as well.”

He added: “The world needs to help the Palestinians. The Arab neighbors need to help the Palestinians develop an economy.”

Bush’s full statement is available on the White House Web site.

An Agence France Presse story spelled out in no uncertain terms that Bush’s agenda was encouraging Palestinian reform, and not pressuring Israel. Entitled “Bush praises Gaza pullout but ignores West Bank settlement growth,” the AFP article reported:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday heaped praise on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for Israel’s historic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip but turned a blind eye to ongoing construction in West Bank settlements. . . . .

Speaking to reporters traveling with his delegation, Sharon said talks focused almost exclusively on Gaza’s future and efforts by the Palestinian Authority to exert control in the territory that they hope to have as part of a future state.

He also said the US leader understood that no progress on the peace process was possible until the Palestinian Authority had proved its mettle in Gaza, which has been the scene of chaos this week in the days following Israel’s departure.

“Most of the conversation was about Gaza. What happens in Gaza is, to their mind, what will dictate the future of the peace process, Sharon said. . . .

Although Bush was keen to see a swift return to the stalled roadmap, he said moves to further the peace process would be easier if the Palestinians demonstrated strong leadership and took action against violence.

“Now is the time for Palestinians to come together to establish a government that will be peaceful to Israel,” Bush said at the outset of the meeting, later telling Sharon: “It will be easier to move forward on the roadmap, in the peace process, if there is good governance and the Palestinian Authority addresses terror.”

Another AFP article yesterday notes:

Washington is now looking to bolster Sharon and has been petitioning its European allies to hold off from pressuring him too hard to speed up further peace moves, the Israeli press reported.

Despite Sharon’s determination to continue building up settlements in the West Bank, the talks with Bush were expected to focus squarely on the gains achieved through the Gaza withdrawal.

The Associated Press carried a similar report yesterday, entitled “Bush looks to Palestinians to make next move.” It read:

President Bush said Wednesday the Palestinians should follow through on Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza by establishing a peaceful government in the area as a starting point toward coexistence with the Jewish state. . . .

Sharon’s decision to withdraw all Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from Gaza seems to have eased pressure on him . . . .

Bush again praised Sharon during their 35-minute meeting, said Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman.

The Israeli daily Ha’aretz also describes the Bush-Sharon meeting (see here and here), and makes no mention of any alleged pressure regarding the West Bank. Instead, the focus of the meeting is said to be Palestinian Authority control in the Gaza Strip and internal Israeli politics.

Given the solid documentation that the purpose of Bush’s meeting with Sharon was to praise him and to urge the Palestinians to reform and eliminate terror, can the Tribune substantiate its claim that the meeting was supposed “to press Sharon . . . to move on the West Bank”?

Some interesting secondary questions arise due to the fact that the gross distortion appears in the Tribune version but not the Times. Did Sanger (and possible Hoge) write the false charge, or was it inserted by Tribune editors? And if the Times reporters did write it, did they or their editors consciously remove it from Times‘ copy, to their credit? While the answer to these questions are unclear, what we do know is that the Tribune owes its readers a correction.

Wire Services Blame Israel in Disputed Incident

Wire stories yesterday from the Agence France Presse and Associated Press blame Israel for killing a 20-year-old Palestinian in an incident which is now under dispute. The AP story is reprinted in the Los Angeles Times today.

The AFP story, entitled “Palestinian killed by Israeli fire in West Bank,” reports without challenge questionable Palestinian claims:

A Palestinian died on Tuesday after being fatally wounded by Israeli fire outside the flashpoint southern West Bank city of Hebron, Palestinian medics said.

Walid Khamaisah, 19, had been shot in the stomach by soldiers in the village of Tafuh, west of Hebron, doctors at the city’s Al-Ahli hospital said.

In an article by Lara Sukhtian, the AP reported yesterday:

Also Tuesday, Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian teenager in a clash near the West Bank town of Hebron, Palestinian hospital officials said. They said the teen was shot in the chest by troops in the village of Tafuh.

The army said troops in the village were attacked by a crowd of about 500 people hurling stones and concrete blocks, and a soldier was slightly injured. Troops fired rubber bullets at the attackers, one of whom was seen being taken away in a Palestinian ambulance, the military said.

Yet, Ha’aretz notes today that the death is under dispute (“Hebron Youth Killed in Disputed Incident.”) The article states: “The army said he might have been a casualty of an inter-clan argument and that the incident would be investigated.”

Finally, an IDF spokesman confirmed for CAMERA that the IDF Central Command learned from the Palestinian Liaison Office in the Hebron area that two Palestinians clans were fighting in the area, which was responsible for Walid Khamaisah’s death.

Media Excuses Palestinian Destruction of Synagogues

As the IDF left the Gaza Strip, ending the Israeli presence there, Palestinians charged in, looting, burning and destroying the synagogues left behind. One can only imagine the international outcry had Israelis destroyed even one deserted Muslim mosque—the mere rumor that a Koran may have been mishandled was enough to spark widespread media condemnation—but here much of the media, following the Palestinian lead, justified the rampaging as an understandable reaction to what they called “38 years of Israeli occupation” in the Gaza Strip and turned the tables to criticize Israel.

PA and Hamas leaders defended the actions of the mobs; a September 12 Jerusalem Post report quoted a dismissive Mahmoud Abbas:

“There are no synagogues here,” he said. “Israel left behind some empty buildings that are likely to collapse. All the public buildings they left are in danger of collapsing,” he said.

The senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that his group:

would not allow the synagogues to exist for fear that they would be turned in the future into “Wailing Walls” for Jews. “We won’t allow any Wailing Walls on our blessed land,” he said. Defending the decision to raze the synagogues, Haniyeh said Israel was trying to keep them to put pressure on the PA to protect them in the future. “These synagogues were built for political, not religious, reasons. They were built illegally and should go away with the occupation.”

Fox News

On Fox News, the roles were reversedit was not the Palestinian rioters, but Israelis who were the violent extremists. A September 12 Fox News broadcast featured correspondent Mike Tobin talking of “extremism” as the camera filmed him in front of Palestinians burning down a Jewish synagogue—but he was not discussing the actions of these arsonists. Tobin was talking about the Israelis who had left the Gaza strip several weeks ago. He said:

We were with a group of Palestinians in the wee hours of the morning as they first discovered what had become an Israeli stronghold of extremism, Kfar Darom…

And describing the situation, he added:

…Just hours earlier, Palestinians would have been shot for running along this strip of land into what was the Gaza settlements. Now with Israeli troops gone, they ran through the predawn darkness to confirm that the pullout was real…

Ignoring the fact that the Palestinians who have broken into Israeli settlements did so with the intent of killing Israeli men, women, and children, Tobin offered no comment on why an Israeli soldier or guard might have fired shots at them. Tobin, in fact, made no allusion at all to Palestinian violence, reserving such description for Israelis alone. Describing the Palestinian entrance into a Gaza synagogue, he said:

We were with a group as they entered the synagogue, the site of the most violent resistance from Israelis opposed to the withdrawal.

CNN

CNN’s correspondent in the Gaza Strip, Matthew Chance, similarly used the opportunity to criticize Israel while whitewashing Palestinian vandalism. Blaming Israel for leaving behind the synagogues and thus “tainting” the Palestinian “victory,” Chance absolved the Palestinian Authority for not protecting the Jewish religious sites:

This structure behind me –very controversial because it is the Jewish synagogue in the middle of Netzarim. The Israeli cabinet, of course, voting to leave those synagogues standing, very much angering the Palestinian Authority, because they know that these buildings are seen very much by the vast majority of Palestinians as potent symbols of the Israeli occupation and could not be protected or even left standing. And so we’re seeing very sensitive scenes here over the past few hours as the Palestinian security forces move the civilians out of that synagogue and move their bulldozers in to take away these structures, again, seen as hated symbols of the Israeli occupation. So these are scenes that are very sensitive to the Palestinian Authority. And also an aspect that’s really kind of tainted the sense of victory, the sense of relief amongst the Palestinians that the Israelis are finally gone…

Reuters

A September 12 Reuters article by Nidal al Mughrabi also used the “hated symbols” rationale to explain the torching of synagogues:

Attacking symbols of the hated Israeli occupation, youths set ablaze several of the synagogues left behind in the 21 settlements evacuated last month under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to “disengage” from conflict. (“Israel Pulls Out of Gaza, Palestinians Rush In”)

Mughrabi also implied that Israel’s refusal to destroy synagogues was partly to blame for the Palestinian anarchy:

Palestinians were angry at Israel’s decision to leave the synagogues, torn between wanting to erase emblems of Israel and uncomfortable at being seen destroying places of worship.

But Palestinians did not seem in the least bit uncomfortable at destroying places of worship, judging by the proud proclamations they made to foreign reporters. For example:

“I wanted to go to the highest point, to see everything and to send a message to the Israelis. They provoked us and I wanted to burn and harm a place that’s sacred for them,” he [Wissam Judeh] said to nods of approval from a crowd of youths around him. (Globe and Mail, “Mass Looting Marks Palestinian “˜Day of Glory’, Mark Mackinnon, September 13, 2005)

The ransacking of settlements by Palestinian mobs was similarly whitewashed in a September 13 Reuters article by Mohammed Assadi as a desperate response to poverty:

Palestinians desperate for income dug through the rubble of former Jewish settlements in Gaza for anything of value on Tuesday, dodging security forces scrambling to restore order…

…”We earn a living and we contribute in keeping the environment clean, and this is not looting,” said Ayman Soboh, a former farmer. “The Israelis stole this land for 38 years. Now they are returning the land to us. It’s ours.” (“Palestinian scavengers strip ex-settlements in Gaza”)

BBC

BBC’s Orla Guerin predictably justified the Palestinian rampaging, going even further than others in her criticism of Israel.  According to Guerin’s highly editorialized reporting, Israel stole years from Palestinian lives.   She contended:

Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could…

What is the Motive for Razing Synagogues?

The Philadelphia Inquirer referred to Palestinian torching of the settlements as “protest fires”:

Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could.

What is the Motive for Razing Synagogues?

The Philadelphia Inquirer referred to Palestinian torching of the settlements as “>Some of the first to arrive before dawn set protest fires. (“Gazans Revel in New Mobility,” Michael Matza, September 13, 2005)

The Los Angeles Times referred to Palestinian destruction of the Jewish synagogues as “fury against the occupation”:

Many vented their fury over the occupation by laying waste to the synagogues that Israeli authorities chose to leave standing. At the Neve Dekalim synagogue, a hulking Star of David-shaped building visible from miles away, a club-wielding crowd had descended by early morning to smash every window and tear insulation from the walls and ceilings. (“Gaza Sites are Awash with Palestinians on a New Shore” Laura King and Ken Ellingwood, September 13, 2005)

London’s Telegraph similarly excused the vandalism, looting and destruction of Israel’s religious sites as  “score-settling:

Half a century of frustration erupted in chaotic euphoria yesterday as thousands of joyful Palestinians flooded into the abandoned Jewish settlements of Gaza in a riot of dancing, looting, and score-settling.

And:

The skies were yet to be lit by the rising sun when the first flames from burning synagogues could be seen, set alight by Palestinians incensed by years when the Israeli army ruthlessly defended the settlements. (“Synagogues Burn as Palestinians Retake Gaza” Said Ghazali and Tim Butcher, September 13, 2005)

To suggest that burning down synagogues is merely a form of “protest,” “fury over occupation,” or “score-settling” ignores the fact that many of those involved in the destruction are self-declared anti-Semites. According to news reports, Hamas hoisted its flag above the ransacked synagogue in Neve Dekalim. This group harbors animosity not just toward Israel but towards Jews in general. For example, the group’s 1988 charter includes the following statements:

1. Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. (Preamble, Hamas Charter [excerpts])

2. The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and the trees will cry out: “O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him” (Article 7)

3. [The Jews] took control of the world media … With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe … They stood behind the French Revolution, [and] the Communist Revolution. (Article 22)

4. They stood behind World War I, … they were behind World War 2, through which they made huge financial gains. (Article 22)

5. [The Zionist scheme] has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (Article 32)

Furthermore, Hamas members acknowledge that their actions are driven by more than Israel’s presence in the Gaza Strip. For example:

A relative of another Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, who gave her name only as Um Mohammed, 42, said Hamas attacks drove Israel out. “It’s the blood of the martyrs that liberated the land,” she told The Associated Press. “Their blood … purified the land.” She added that Hamas would not lay down its arms “as long as there are Jews in Palestine.” (Jerusalem Post, “Hamas Holds Largest-Ever Gaza Rally,” September 13, 2005)

Why does the media implicate Israel in what is a classic act of anti-Semitism? Why do they ignore the possibility that the key motive in torching and destroying synagogues is the same as that behind similar acts by the Nazis in the 1930’s, the Jordanians in 1948, and anti-Semites throughout the agesthe desire to obliterate all symbols of Judaism?

AFP’s Timeline of Bias

You have to hand it to Agence France Presse. The European wire service is speedy. As of 10 a.m. in Israel, the wire carried numerous AFP stories about the Gaza Strip and other developments in the region. The Associated Press, another major wire service, had none.

But, judging by some of today’s AFP reports, timeliness came at the expense of objective reporting. For instance, a report issued 2:16 a.m. GMT from Kfar Darom claimed that today some Palestinians “danced jigs of joy over the first ever Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian land.”

But, of course, this is not the first time that Israel has turned over land to the Palestinians. Indeed, an AFP timeline released today and entitled “Major events in Palestinian history,” states that in 1996, “Israel hands over the main towns of the West Bank to Palestinian rule.” And, in 1994–also noted in the “Major events” timeline–Israel withdrew from Palestinian population centers in Gaza. The withdrawals during the Oslo period left more than 95 percent of the Palestinian population under its own rule.

The timeline itself is tendentious, largely whitewashing Palestinian Arab violence and responsibility for the conflict. (The timeline can be viewed here.) For instance, the Aug. 23, 1929 entry states: “Riots between Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem spread over most West Bank towns, killing hundreds.” The 1929 riots were not “between Arabs and Jews”; they were Arab perpetrated anti-Jewish riots throughout Mandate Palestine, and not just the West Bank. As Martin Gilbert notes in his Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict:

On 23 August 1929, over a thousand Arabs in three main groups, emerged from the old city of Jerusalem and attacked any Jew they could catch in several of the Jewish quarters of the city, and in its suburbs. Attacks on Jews quickly spread throughout Palestine. That night the British authorities refused permission to allow the Jews to set up armed units to protect Jewish settlements. By nightfall of 26 August, 133 Jews had been killed, and 339 wounded. Of the 116 Arab dead, all but six had been killed by the British Mandate police in their efforts to halt the anti-Jewish violence.

The timeline then goes on to address the Nov. 27, 1947 United Nations Partition Plan, stating: “UN approves Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.” AFP fails to mention that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the plan, and instead joined with six Arab armies to invade the nascent Jewish state.

How does AFP describe this coordinated Arab attack, a violation of the original U.N. Charter? By completely sidestepping any Arab responsibility for the aggression:

Declaration of the creation of the state of Israel provokes an eight-month war with Arab states. More than 400 Palestinian villages in what became Israel are destroyed and 700,000-900,000 refugees flee to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and neighbouring Arab countries.

The AFP’s description of the refugee situation ignores the fact that the Palestinians were involved in a war to eliminate Israel, and not simply a victim of supposed Israeli destruction and expulsions. (Most of those who fled did so at the behest of their own leaders.) Furthermore, AFP’s refugee figure is somewhat exaggerated. Between 472,000 and 650,000 Arab refugees left that portion of British Mandatory Palestine that became Israel. The larger figure reflects the difference in the area’s Arab population between the last British and first Israeli censuses; the smaller one was given at the time by the U.N. mediator.

AFP again ignores Arab belligerence in its recounting of the 1967 war, which states: “June 5-10, 1967 – The Six Day War. Israel occupies east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” Israel gained those territories as a result of a preemptive war in response to illegal and aggressive Arab acts. Amid an atmosphere of vitriolic Arabic rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel, Egypt massed 100,000 troops on Israel’s southern border. Egypt also ejected U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act of war under international law. Up north, Syrian troops moved into the Golan Heights and Iraq joined a military alliance with Syria, Egypt and Jordan. After the war began with Egypt, Israel’s prime minister notified King Hussein of Jordan that Israel would not attack Jordan unless Jordan initiated military action. According to Hussein’s autobiography, the king responded by shelling Jerusalem and bombing Netanya. Of course, Israel would not have gained control of east Jerusalem were it not for Jordan’s aggression.

Palestinian-Jordanian “˜Tensions’

The AFP again whitewashes Palestinian violence, this time directed towards the Hashemite Kingdom, with the euphemistic entry for Sept. 16-22, 1970: “Tensions between the PLO and Jordan erupt into bloody battles that leave at least 3,000 dead and end with the ejection of the PLO base from Jordan to Lebanon.” These “tensions” include the Palestine Liberation Organization’s establishment of a state within a state, challenging King Hussein’s rule and clashing repeatedly with the Jordanian army and security forces; Palestinian attacks launched from Jordan against Israel which drew retaliation against Jordan; multiple Palestinian attempts to assassinate King Hussein; and the hijacking of three Western airliners to Jordan

Following a by now predictable pattern of ignoring the initial Palestinian provocation and reporting only the Israeli response, the AFP writes about June 1982: “Israel invades Lebanon, besieging Beirut and PLO headquarters there for some 80 days. PLO moves to Tunis.” Again, the AFP has given no indication as to what Palestinian actions prompted the Israeli invasion. They include the ongoing shelling of Israeli northern communities, worldwide terrorism emanating from the PLO based in Lebanon, and the PLO’s massive buildup of long-range artillery. For example, in just one week of July 1981, more than 1000 shells and rockets were lobbed at 33 Israeli towns and settlement. During an American brokered cease-fire that year, the PLO accumulated 90 122- and 130-mm cannon and 100 vehicle-mounted Katyusha launchers as well as substantial amounts of shorter-ranger artillery (Ariel Sharon with David Chernoff, Warrior, p. 433). In addition, PLO terrorists from July 1981 and June 1982 killed 15 and wounded 250 in Israel, the West Bank, and overseas. Aborted or disrupted plans included a rocket attack on Eilat, blowing up buses and phone booths, and an attempt to explode a kindergarten near Tel Aviv. In March 1982, Israeli offices in Paris and Athens were attacked, and on April 3, PLO terrorists murdered an Israeli embassy official in Paris.

The 21^st Century

Just like AFP ignores Palestinian Arabs rejection the 1947 Partition Plan, the wire service ignores Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat’s rejection of an unprecedented Israeli offer at Camp David in 2000. Moreover, Arafat even refused to offer a counter-proposal. Nevertheless, AFP delicately reports: “The talks fail, paving the way for the eruption of the second intifada two months later.”

The AFP further exonerates the Palestinians for the violence they launched against Israel post-Camp David, by stating that on Sept. 28: “Right-wing Israeli opposition leader, later prime minister, Ariel Sharon, visits the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, a site holy to Islam and Judaism, sparking the first clashes of the intifada.” It is nonsense to blame Sharon for “sparking” the intifada, when even Palestinian officials have exonerated him and acknowledged their own culpability. According to Communications Minister Imad Al-Faluji:

Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong.. . . This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.(Al-Safir, March 3, 2001. Translated by MEMRI)

Elsewhere, Al-Faluji said: “The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations.”(Al-Ayyam, December 6, 2000. Translated by MEMRI).

In the decades-long, bloody Palestinian history, it is not until 2002 that AFP begins to acknowledge Palestinian responsibility for Israeli counter-measures. Thus, AFP notes: “Responding to a wave of suicide bombings, Israel invades . . . .” and “Israel starts to build a wall sealing the West Bank off from Israel in an attempt to block militants from attacking the Jewish state.” (Of course, the barrier cannot be accurately described as a “wall,” since it is mostly wire fencing, and less than five percent concrete wall. Also, Palestinians who sneak into Israel to blow up pizzerias, discos, and bat mitzvah parties are obviously not “militants,” but terrorists.)

While AFP is entitled to give an objective accounting of major events significant to Palestinian history, this right is not tantamount to distorting history to reflect the Palestinian view.

Terrorists, Terrorism and The Washington Post

The Washington Post published an informative, moving first anniversary feature on the Sept. 1, 2004 seizure of an elementary school in Beslan, Russia. That attack ended with the deaths of 331 people, 186 of them children.

The substance of  “School Is Symbol of Death for Haunted Children of Beslan; A Year After Siege, Russians Still Grapple With Dark Memories,” by Post foreign service correspondent Peter Finn was worthwhile. And the vocabulary of  the August 28, 2005 article stood out as well.

The Post describes those who seized the school as terrorists six times and their attack as “Russia’s worst terrorist [emphasis added] act ….”  Although a surviving terrorist is referred to once as a “hostage-taker, the euphemism “militant” never appears. Neither do other substitutions commonly applied to Palestinian terrorists, such as “gunmen” or “fighters.”

CAMERA has criticized The Washington Post repeatedly for its inconsistent, contradictory use of the words terrorist and terrorism, and frequent, inaccurate substitution of militant for terrorist. Our July 21 analysis, Location, Location, Location, pointed out the newspaper’s frequent and precise use of terrorist and terrorism in the newspaper’s coverage of the July 7 London subway and bus bombings – and avoidance of those terms in reporting the suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Netanya, Israel.

Unfortunately, Finn’s Beslan anniversary feature does not appear to mark a change, but rather seems to illustrate that The Post‘s contradictory, misleading and even invidious usage regarding terrorist and militant continues. For example:

* In “Anguish and Anger a Year Later in Beslan; Broken Community Begins Three-Day Remembrance of Separatist Siege at School,” September 2, Finn repeats his reference to the mass killings as Russia’s “worst terrorist act.” But the perpetrators are identified as terrorists only in a direct quote from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Otherwise, in The Post‘s own words, they are “separatist fighters,” “Chechen separatists,” “heavily armed guerrillas,” “guerrillas” and “one surviving attacker.”
 
* “Beslan Marks Anniversary of Attack’s End,” a September 4 Associated Press dispatch published by The Post, refers to “one of Russia’s deadliest terrorist attacks ….” But those who committed it were said to be “heavily armed militants,” “rebels,” and “gunmen.”

In other recent articles, The Post again showed more readiness to use the words terrorism and terrorist in news from the United States and European than the Middle East:

* In the September 7 article “Rebuilding Begins Where Terror Struck; N.Y. Transportation Hub Costs $2.2 Billion,” datelined New York City, not only does “terror” appear in the headline, but Post correspondent Michelle Garcia also writes in the body of the article that “Five days before the four-year anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks [emphasis added], federal and state officials celebrated the first phase of reconstruction at a site still considered a cemetery by survivors.” The word militant does not appear.

* The August 31 article, “Ex-Counterterrorism Chief Cites Rise in Attacks,” by staff writer Walter Pincus, referred to Osama bin Laden as “the terrorist leader.” Pincus also paraphrased former White House counter-terrorism director Richard Clarke as criticizing Bush administration rhetoric on “fighting terrorists abroad” and noting that “chemical plants represent particularly dangerous targets for terrorists.” The terms jihadist threat and jihadist networks are used, but militant is not.

* On August 21, The Post published an Associated Press article, “Pope Urges Muslims to Fight Terrorism; In Germany, Benedict Seeks Religious Unity Against Fanaticism.” Datelined Cologne, the AP dispatch used the word terrorism four times in its own narrative and twice in direct quotes of Pope Benedict XVI. The word militant did not appear.

* In “Judge Heard Terrorism Case As He Interviewed for Seat,” August 17, staff writer Jim VandeHei reports on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who, “like many other suspected terrorists, was detained at the prison in Guantanamo Bay and accused of belonging to the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” The term “Bush’s anti-terrorism strategy” appears twice, “terrorism case” and “terrorist suspects” each once. Militant does not appear. 
     
* In the same edition, the article “L.A. Holdups Linked to Islamic Group, Possible Terrorist Plot,” by staff writers Amy Argetsinger and Dan Eggen, the word “terrorist” appears in the headline, in the lead paragraph about an investigation of gas station hold-ups that “broadened into an investigation of a possible terrorist plot …”, and in the sentence “No connections have been made to al Qaeda or any other foreign terrorist group.” The phrases “”˜jihadist’ literature,” “jihadist literature,” and “radical Islamic group” appear. Militant does not.

Yet in “Israeli Pullout Creates Political Opportunity; Shift of Gaza Land and Assets to Palestinians Sharpens Hamas-Fatah Rivalry,” a September 5 report by Post foreign service correspondent Scott Wilson, the words terrorism and terrorist do not appear.

Hamas is listed by the United States and Israel as a terrorist organization. But “Israeli Pullout Creates Political Opportunity” says Hamas has an “armed wing” that “carried out ambushes, suicide bombings and missile strikes on Jewish settlements during the nearly five-year Palestinian uprising.” In fact, Hamas conducted terrorism in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulting in the murder of hundreds of Israeli non-combatants and the wounding of many more. Its “armed wing” – an assortment of terrorist cells – continues to define it.

Fatah, often termed a political party or movement, was co-founded by Yasser Arafat and – through its al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim and other affiliates – remains the largest Palestinian terrorist group, the major component of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The PLO itself was and remains an umbrella organization of terrorist groups. Fatah’s West Bank leader, Marwan Barghouti, was convicted by Israel for his involvement in terrorist murders during the “al-Aksa intifada” and jailed.

Nevertheless, “Israeli Pullout Creates Political Opportunity” says only that “Fatah [like Hamas] … operates its own militia ….”

CAMERA’s continued focus on the news media’s use, or avoidance, of the words terrorism and terrorist and the frequent substitution of militant or other euphemisms is not a quibble. George Orwell famously warned that corrupt language could lead to corrupt thought, eventually to the point of justifying murder.

We pointed out in our July 21 analysis that The Washington Post‘s general failure to accurately describe Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israel goes back at least to the early 1980s. Then the paper’s coverage often attempted to disassociate Arafat from the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, anti-Western attacks carried out at his direction by the PLO and its constituent groups.

Doing the same now not only with Fatah but also Hamas obscures the news instead of reporting it accurately. It makes the paper a de facto apologist advocate for one side – and that side the aggressor. Journalistic standards demand that The Washington Post identify the aggression and the aggressor accurately and consistently.

The New York Times Sort of Corrects Distorted Rice Interview

Though many may have missed it due to continuing coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the New York Times has withdrawn its claims that after the Gaza withdrawal the Bush administration will demand further imminent concessions from Israel. In a stunning reversal, with no admission of error, the paper is now reporting the opposite.

The original claims came in the paper’s report of its exclusive August 17 interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Times reporters Joel Brinkley and Steven Weisman managed to distort and mangle virtually all of Rice’s statements about Israel and the Palestinians, sometimes even inventing assertions out of thin air to make it seem the senior official was critical of Israel. The Times reported, for example, that:

Ms. Rice has visited the region twice recently to ensure that the Gaza withdrawal proceeds smoothly. While she noted that the withdrawal would take several weeks to play out, soon after that, she insisted, Israel must take further steps, including loosening travel restrictions in the West Bank and withdrawing from more Palestinian cities.

This claim is utter nonsense – according to the interview transcript, it was the Times reporters who said essentially this, to which the Secretary replied “no.” (The transcript is available on the State Department website.)

Besides reporting things the Secretary did not actually say, the Times virtually ignored many things she did say, including her most emphatic assertions, which concerned Palestinian terrorism. Five times Rice stated the Palestinians had to dismantle terrorist groups, rather than try to coexist with them. Unfortunately the Times journalists gave no hint of this to their readers, greatly downplaying the Secretary’s forceful condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.

For the full details on how the Times distorted the interview, see the earlier CAMERA report.

When contacted by irate subscribers, the Times defended their report, denying that any correction was necessary. Here are excerpts from Steve Weisman’s response to one reader:

Thanks for your note. We are not issuing a correction…. [Secretary Rice] called on Israel to pull forces out of five cities in the West Bank, to dismantle the four settlements in the West Bank and to carry out other steps in the Sharm el-Sheikh accord of earlier this year, and not wait for the Palestinians to take their steps.

I’m afraid that your quarrel is with her, not us…

Just a few days later Weisman had changed his tune. In a Sept. 4th story headlined “Hoping to Buttress Sharon, U.S. Urges Allies’ Restraint,” Weisman contradicted his earlier reporting, now admitting that the US was indeed against any pressure on Israel for further concessions:

The Bush administration, hoping to strengthen Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the Israeli turmoil after the Gaza withdrawal, is urging allies of the United States to refrain from pressing Israel to make new concessions to Palestinians, senior American officials said this week.

Since the pullout, Palestinian leaders, with some support in Europe and elsewhere, have urged Israel to take further action to stop the growth of settlements in the West Bank and make many other moves. The officials said President Bush and his top aides had begun emphasizing that the first priority in the Middle East was for Israel to complete the pullout from Gaza and for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to demonstrate control over security there.

Apparently when Weisman wrote that pressure on Israel for new concessions was coming from “Europe and elsewhere,” the elsewhere included his office at the New York Times!

It therefore must have been difficult for Weisman to admit the US wanted the message to Sharon to be congratulations rather than more pressure:

A senior administration official also said: “There’s no question that we are aware of the toll that the whole disengagement debate took on Israelis. In our view, the message to Prime Minister Sharon from people in New York should be one of congratulations, not one of new pressures.”

How did Weisman try to explain this reversal? By implying that it was not that the Times had got it wrong, but rather that the Bush administration had radically altered its policies.

But there had been no change in administration policies – the Times had got it terribly wrong. And the paper still owes its readers a full and fair correction of its gross mischaracterization of Rice’s assertions in the August 17 interview.