How would you respond if you were in a dispute with your neighbor, you offered them nearly all that they offered for the sake of peace, and they not only rejected your offer but unleashed a violent attack on you and your family? Would you continue to find a way to get along with them? Would you ever want to see them again?
That is the perspective that is lacking in a piece marking twenty years since the outbreak of the second violent Palestinian Intifada, “Palestinians out of sight, almost out of mind for Israelis seared by 2000 uprising,” penned by Reuters reporters Stephen Farell, Dan Williams and Maayan Lubell.
The article, whose primary message is that since the 2000 Palestinian Intifada,“many Israelis ceased seeing the Palestinians as prospective peace partners, and prefer not to see them at all,” is missing critical background information and misleading. The first half of the article’s message, Israelis ceasing to see the Palestinians as partners for peace is most certainly true but the article fails to give the full background to explain why this is the case. The second half of that message, that Israelis “prefer not to see ” Palestinians at all, paints Israelis as xenophobic, and not as people seeking safety and security.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
Let us dissect the article and explain its inaccuracies and failure to provide full background.
After opening the article with an image of cold separation between Israelis and Palestinians, halfway through the article, the reporters explain what transpired 20 years ago this week:
The uprising erupted on Sept. 28, 2000 after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon paid a high-profile visit to Jerusalem’s most fiercely disputed holy site, the walled Old City compound known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) and to Jews as the Temple Mount.
Palestinians regarded Sharon’s walkabout as a calculated provocation, but Israel accused then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat of inciting violence – two months after a failed peace summit in the United States.
Palestinians signalled they would accept nothing less than a viable state in what is now Israeli-occupied territory with its capital in East Jerusalem, while many Israelis concluded that they had no “partner for peace.
The description of a debate between the Palestinians and Israel regarding the cause of the Second intifada, with the Palestinians saying it “erupted” spontaneously due to the “provocation” of Sharon’s visit and the Israelis saying it was Arafat inciting violence, is false. And Palestinian leaders say so themselves.
Imad Falouji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Director, gave a speech in December 2000 in which he said that the Intifada:
was carefully planned since the return of Yasser Arafat from the Camp David negotiations, rejecting the US conditions.”
Mamduh Nofal, former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine revealed that following Camp David:
Arafat told us, ‘Now we are going to fight so we must be ready.’”
Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar revealed in September 2010 that in the summer of 2000 as soon as Arafat understood that all of his demands would not be met, he instructed Hamas, Fatah, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to begin attacking Israel.
Marwan Barghouti, leader of the Fatah Tanzim, who is now serving multiple life sentences for his role in coordinating fatal terror attacks during the Second Intifada, said that the Intifada was planned well before Sharon’s visit but the Palestinian leadership simply used the visit as a rallying cry, calling Palestinians in all cities to raise arms against Israel to protect the Palestinian holy site.
One last proof comes from Arafat’s widow Suha who, in a television interview in Dubai in December 2012, said:
Immediately after the failure of Camp David, I met him in Paris upon his return…. Camp David had failed, and he said to me, ‘You should remain in Paris.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because I am going to start an Intifada.’”
The article’s portrayal of a legitimate suggestion that the Palestinians revolted because of an action taken by an Israeli leader misleads the reader into considering the argument that blames Israel for the violent uprising and its consequences.
One other piece of critical information was omitted from the Reuters article. Even if one ignores the Palestinians themselves who say that Sharon’s visit was not the cause for the intifada, how can any report of the incident not mention that Sharon only visited the site after the Israeli Interior Minister received an assurance from the security chief of the Palestinian Authority that no uproar would arise as a result of the visit? Jibril Rajoub, head of Preventive Security on the West Bank confirmed that Sharon could visit the sensitive area as long as he did not enter a mosque or pray publicly, rules which Sharon adhered to.
Misreporting Israeli Generosity, Ignoring Palestinian Rejectionism
The article’s description of “a failed peace summit in the United States” and the “Palestinians signalled they would accept nothing less than a viable state in what is now Israeli-occupied territory with its capital in East Jerusalem” is terribly misleading and omits critical background.
The “failed peace summit” refers to the Camp David Summit. Any true reporting of those meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat cannot suggest that the Palestinians were not offered “a viable state” as this article implies. During that summit, Israel offered the Palestinians 73% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip with a plan to eventually transfer control of 91% of the West Bank, with an elevated highway and railroad to connect the two territories. The Palestinians would also receive the equivalent of one percent of the West Bank by taking control of the Halutza Sand region next to the Gaza Strip.
Regarding Jerusalem, Israel offered to make East Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state and proposed giving the Palestinians “custodianship” over the Temple Mount and “administration” over the Muslim and Christian Quarters of the Old City and all Islamic and Christian holy sites. They would be allowed to raise the Palestinian flag in all these locations. Israel also agreed to allow for 100,000 Palestinian refugees to move into Israel proper with an international fund worth $30 billion which Israel would contribute to, would register claims of property lost by Palestinian refugees and provide appropriate compensation.
White House aides who were present at Camp David II were surprised at how far Barak was willing to go and felt that his offer met most of what the Palestinians were asking for.
The Reuters article, simply referencing a “failed summit,” neglects to blame Arafat for rejecting an offer for close to 100% of what he demanded. Writing that the Palestinians were holding out for a “viable state” implies that no such offer was made. And that is false.
The article’s first reference to the as a “five-year intifada in which more than 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians were killed” similarly misleads by implying his was a war between two sides in which more Palestinians than Israelis were killed. ” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Only much, much later in the article, historian Benny Morris is quoted explaining that during the Second Intifada, “over 1,000 Israelis were killed by bombers, snipers, in restaurants and so on.”
During the five-year Second Intifada, Palestinian terrorists blew themselves up in pizza parlors, busses, and other public areas in Israel, murdering over 1,000 and injuring over 8,000. Those injuries included Israelis whose limbs were blown off and whose bodies were filled with shrapnel from explosives filled with nuts, bolts, and nails.
Yes, Palestinians were killed as Israel sought to kill and arrest the terrorists responsible for these attacks – and among the 2,124 Palestinians killed according to Israeli records, 466 were members of Hamas, 408 from Fatah’s Tanzim and al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, 205 from Islamic Jihad, and 334 from the Palestinian Authority security forces involved in the terror attacks. Casualty counts can be extremely misleading. Reducing the Intifada to merely 1,000 vs. 3,000, paints Israel as the aggressors and perhaps even as the victors. In reality, thousands of Israeli civilians being maimed, and 1,000 murdered, necessitated a strong Israeli response to attack the Palestinian terrorists responsible and prevent more attacks. The authors failed to properly detail this history and misled readers regarding what actually transpired during the Second Intifada.
This leads to another failure; the omission of basic facts regarding the security barrier. The authors write:
Israel credits the barrier with having stemmed Palestinian suicide bombings and shooting attacks… Palestinians say it was a land grab that cuts miles into the West Bank and was designed to annex parts of the territory that Israel captured and occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, and which Palestinians seek for a future state… But there is little argument that the barrier has shifted the geographical terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
How can the reporters describe this as a “he said, she said?” The facts speak for themselves. The security barrier, a reaction to the havoc and terror wrought by the Second Intifada, reduced Palestinian terror attacks by 90%. There is no disputing this reality. The authors say that “there is little argument” that the barrier has separated between Israelis and Palestinians. That is true. But an unbiased and truthful article would use those same words, “there is little argument,” regarding the barrier’s impact on Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel.
The article is also misleading in its implication that the barrier completely prevents any interaction between Palestinians and Israelis. In fact, 80,000 Palestinians enter Israel daily for work, education and medical care. Which brings us back to one of the article’s opening sentences: “many Israelis ceased seeing the Palestinians as prospective peace partners, and prefer not to see them at all.”
Yes, most Israelis no longer see the Palestinians as peace partners and prefer to remain separated from the Palestinians. But that is not because of anything personal against Palestinian people and because of far more than the Second Intifada. It is because of the Palestinian rejection of the Israeli offer in Camp David, the ensuing intifada, the failed Israeli attempt to spur peace with the unilateral disengagement from Gaza which has led to countless rounds of war, and the Palestinian leadership traveling around the world misleading the international community about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Full background, accuracy, and caution with choice of language are critical when writing about a sensitive and complex topic like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, the writers of this Reuters article failed regarding all three.
