I’m in my office, working. It’s been a very busy day. But right now, Tig3.0 is asleep on my lap. Can’t get you a picture, because the camera is downstairs—but life is good.

I haven’t had a lapcat in eleven years. It’s nice.

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

In her valedictory from the Middle East, Deborah Sontag wrote “Quest for Mideast Peace: How and Why it failed.” In it she tells a story:

But Palestinians drove away from that dinner with something else on their minds — Mr. Sharon’s coming visit to what Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary and Jews know as the Temple Mount. Mr. Arafat said in an interview that he huddled on the balcony with Mr. Barak and implored him to block Mr. Sharon’s plans. But Mr. Barak’s government perceived the planned visit by Mr. Sharon, then the opposition leader, as solely an internal Israeli political matter, specifically as an attempt to divert attention from the expected return to political life by a right-wing rival — Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister. On the heels of very intricate grappling at Camp David over the future status of the Old City’s holy sites, Mr. Sharon’s heavily guarded visit to the plaza outside Al Aksa Mosque to demonstrate Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount set off angry Palestinian demonstrations. The Israelis used lethal force to put them down. The cycle of violence started, escalated, mutated and built to a peak between mid-May and June 1 with the Israeli use of F-16 fighter jets in Nablus and the terrorist bombing outside a Tel Aviv disco.

Let’s go back to September 27, 2000 and see another report also written by Sontag, Arafat’s Visit to Barak’s Place Broke the Ice, Both Sides Say:

It was just a little suburban dinner party, nothing fancy. The host and his guest of honor cracked jokes. They strolled in the garden for an intimate chat. And then the host kissed his guest goodbye, walked him to a waiting Israeli military helicopter and waved as the guest, wearing his trademark kaffiyeh, flew back to Gaza City. A senior adviser to Yasir Arafat said the late-night supper, at Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s private home in Kochav Yair on Monday, was the single best meeting ever between the Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

Does that sound like Arafat “implored” Barak to prevent Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount? Or put differently, if Arafat had expressed such a concern and Barak had ignored it, would Arafat have described the meeting as the “best” one he ever had with Barak?

Of course not. The later account was Arafat’s revisionism. Sontag reported it uncritically. Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount wasn’t a concern. In retrospect it became an alibi for Arafat. The so-called “Aqsa intifada” wasn’t a spontaneous response to the Sharon walk, but an organized war (or mini-war) against Israel organized by Arafat. His historical revisionism, abetted by the New York Times reporter was his way of evading the blame for his responsibility.

Do you remember Tuvia Grossman? Tuvia Grossman was a young man who at the beginning of the “Aqsa intifada” was set upon by an Arab mob and beaten. Yet when his picture appeared on the front page of the Times, he was identified as a Palestinian. The picture seemed to show a young man who had just been beaten by an Israeli policeman. In fact, it was Tuvia Grossman and the policeman had been chasing off his attackers. Once one of Grossman’s relatives recognized him and informed media outlets a correction was made. Still the initial impression of most news organization led to an erroneous caption. The organization HonestReporting was founded in response to this journalistic error.

In both these cases, a narrative governed the reporting of the Times. The narrative in short was: the violence of the “Aqsa intifada” started in response to Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount and Israel responded with disproportionate an lethal force.

There was another event that marked the early days of the violence. That was the killing of Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli troops. Al-Dura’s death became a focal point of much of the violence and tension. Or as Ms. Sontag’s husband, William Orme reported, he became A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence.

A few hours later Muhammad was dead, shot in the stomach as he crouched behind his father on the sidelines of an intensifying battle between Israeli and Palestinian security forces. The father, shouting that his boy had been killed, was also hit, taking four bullets in a volley that he later said had come from Israeli soldiers. A local ambulance driver, Bassam al-Bilbeisi, who was trying to come to the aid of the wounded father and son, was also killed by the gunfire. The entire horrific scene was filmed at close rage by a France 2 television crew.

Shown repeatedly on the Saturday evening news programs in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Israel, and throughout the Middle East, the shooting turned the 12-year-old boy into a potent new symbol of what angry Palestinians contend is their continued victimization by Israeli occupiers.

Though 11 other Palestinians were killed in the day’s fighting — most of them while taking part in the rock-hurling clashes with Israeli troops — the enduring image of the violence was a terrified Muhammad al-Durrah trapped by Israeli gunfire and then slumping lifeless into his father’s lap.

But now the narrative of Mohammed al-Dura has been called into question. A media watchdog named Phillipe Karsenty alleged that the whole scene was staged and didn’t happen. He was sued by the station that taped the scene and first reported the shooting, France 2. Karsenty was found to have libeled France 2 and its reporter Charles Enderlein. But yesterday, Karsenty’s appeal was accepted and a Paris court threw out the judgment against him.

There’s a lot to this case, not just its implications to the Middle East. For one thing, Karsenty showed during his appeal that France 2 had lied in court. There is plenty in this case that is newsworthy. And yet the New York Times has not seen fit to report on it except in its blog, even though the paper’s current Paris correspondent just completed his tour in the Middle East.

The Times’s oversight is troubling. As I’ve shown above the Times accepted a narrative that shaped a lot of its reporting at the time. One piece of that narrative was exposed quickly. In another case a Times reporter used a highly suspect statement of an interested party to support the narrative. Now another part of the narrative has been shown to be suspect. At least in the name of accuracy one would hope that the Times would look into the case and what it implies.

In addition to the immediate issue of the origins of the “Aqsa intifada“, the case calls into question the widespread use of local stringers who may be more interested in promoting an agenda than in accuracy. The Times’s lack of curiosity in this case reflects poorly on its commitment to getting the story correct.

Sincerely,
David Gerstman

ps I have posted this on my blog. If I receive a substantive response, I will post it unedited.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

I’m only a tiny bit worried about the talks with Syria, because they’re going to fail. And they’re going to fail, because I doubt Syria will cut ties with terrorists and Iran, which is a deal-breaker for Israel.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni commented Thursday on the renewed negotiations between Israel and Syria and said any peace process hinges on Damascus’ renouncement of its support of terror.

“Israel’s primary goal has always been peace with its neighbors. The Syrians have to understand that it entails giving up their support of terror (elements), namely Hamas, Iran and Hizbullah,” Livni said at the onset of her Jerusalem meeting with French counterpart Bernard Kouchner.

There’s one interesting piece of news I didn’t know: Olmert obviously fears Livni’s chances of taking over his position. Why else would he not have her in the loop on this?

The Israeli FM did not comment on the fact that she was kept in the dark on the renewed peace talks by her fellow “Kitchen Cabinet” members – Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who led the initiative. Olmert updated Livni on the joint statement drafted by Jerusalem, Ankara and Damascus just an hour before it was issued.

Remember the last time it looked like Olmert was going to fall, Livni was announcing she was ready to take over Kadima. He bought her silence then. Looks like he’s playing politics with her future as well as Israel’s. Not that I think she’d be much better than Olmert. She’s too ready to give away the farm as well.

Meantime, the Syrians are showing the typical Arab mentality about bargaining with Israel: No concessions, no deals, just give us what we demand and STFU.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told the newspaper “There will not be a situation in which Syria advances even one step (in the peace process) without a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. This is not a prerequisite; it is our right.”

And oh yeah—we’re talking full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines.

Senior Syrian officials were quoted by London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat as saying that the renewed talks with Israel were aimed, among other things, to set a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 (pre-Six Day War) borders.

Full withdrawal without Syria’s total shutdown of terror operations and breaking off ties with Iran is not going to happen. Even if Olmert wants to agree to it, his country will refuse to follow. Even now, the Golan communities are balking. They point out that every time Olmert has been investigated for corruption and things look extremely serious, he offers up some kind of peace deal to take attention away from his crimes. They’re calling him an “interogee” publicly, a reference to the ongoing investigations.

“The Israeli public will not allow such a strange and irresponsible act that will transfer strategic and settled land to the Arab axis of evil,” he added.

Malka and Katzrin Council head Sammy Bar-Lev issued a combined statement saying that “the Prime Minister’s Office’s declaration which is presently trying in every way possible to pull Olmert away from the prongs of investigation, is a cynical and dangerous act and places personal interests above national ones.”

Meantime, Israeli analysts agree: Olmert can’t possibly pull this one off. It’s a cynical move on both their parts.

Golan residents can relax. The Golan Heights will apparently not be handed over to the Syrians in the coming years, if at all. Syria has no interest in peace with Israel, just like Israel has no interest is handing the Golan over to the Syrians.

Syria cannot deliver the minimal goods required of it; that is, severing its ties with terror organizations and the Iranian influence in favor of normalization with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has no desire to provide the Syrians with military positions on the Golan, which would again threaten Israeli communities, or to allow the Syrians access to the Sea of Galilee.

[...] The question which many Israelis must ask themselves is not how much peace we shall receive in exchange for the Golan, as if the Heights were a tradable commodity with a set price, but rather, does Assad really want peace? Would such peace serve his supreme goal, which is the safeguarding of his regime?

The answer to that is negative of course. The hatred for Israel, the external enemy, enables him to maintain absolute power in his country despite the economic and social repression suffered by the masses. The connection with terror groups, Iran, and the Palestinians enables Assad to get along with the Arab world and with his own citizens under the umbrella of hostility to Israel.

I like this part of the analysis the best:

When Assad’s people say that they are willing to engage in negotiations with Israel without pre-conditions, they only mean no Israeli pre-conditions, of course. The Syrians, on the other hand, are taking the pre-condition of getting the Golan for granted.

Of course, the AP does its best to spin the issue anti-Israel by ignoring the fact that the Syrians don’t really want peace. They just want the Golan back. Witness the headline, and angle, to the latest AP story:

Israelis express skepticism on Syria peace talks
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s dramatic announcement that he is negotiating a peace deal with Syria was greeted Thursday with overwhelming skepticism in Israel.

Many Israelis appear to believe the embattled leader made the declaration to divert attention from the corruption allegations that threaten to end his term in office, and opinion polls showed Israelis remained wary of withdrawing from the strategic Golan Heights — even in return for peace with one of Israel’s most bitter enemies.

Notice the emphasis on Israeli skepticism, rather than insincerity on the part of Syria. You have to read down to the last two or three paragraphs to find this information:

The nations have fought three wars, their forces have clashed in Lebanon, and more recently, Syria has given support to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups.

The sides’ demands in any peace deal are well-known. Syria wants a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, and Israel wants Syria to end its support for militants, curb its ties with Iran, and establish full diplomatic relations.

There is not one word about the eighteen years that Syria used the Golan Heights to shell northern Israeli communities. The vague “end its support for militants” supplants facts about Syria hosting and protecting terrorist leaders in Damascus, as well as utterly ignoring the Syrian colonization and subjugation of Lebanon. These are not minor issues. These are what Syria must stop in order to achieve peace with Israel, yet they all fall under the vague phrase “end its support for militants.”

As I said above, the only positive thing about all of this is that I know Olmert can’t carry it off—because the Dorktator dosn’t really want peace. He wants a distraction for his people, and he wants to make it look like the Israelis are the ones refusing to make peace. The AP is already helping him achieve that goal. Count on seeing more of the same from the rest of the non-Israeli media.