May 31, 2009

9 years later, still covering for arafat

Commenter Sassinfras claims that Yasser Arafat begged Ehud Barak when they met at Barak's apartment, not to allow Ariel Sharon to visit the Temple Mount in late September 2000. This is a dubious claim.

Deborah Sontag initially reported on the meeting:


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.

The adviser, Nabil Shaath, said today that it had been ''very cordial,'' even congenial. He noted that the two men had walked together to the balcony twice -- ''and both came back.''

A week later, Sontag started her article like this:

Last week, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, were having a garden party, breaking pita bread and trading jokes in the yard of Mr. Barak's private suburban home in Israel.

Only when she was leaving the Jerusalem desk, did Sontag write this:

All this behind-the-scenes movement was reflected in the atmosphere at that dinner party at Mr. Barak's home. The prime minister, who had refused to talk directly to the Palestinian leader at Camp David, now courted him. Mr. Ben-Ami, then foreign minister, said he left the dinner and told his wife that Mr. Barak -- whom he describes as ''deaf to cultural nuance'' -- was so intent on forging a peace agreement that he was willing to change ''not only his policies but his personality.''

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.

Does that sound like "joking" and "cordial?" No, Sontag willfully committed fraud here. This claim of Arafat's that he begged Barak to prevent Ariel Sharon from visiting the Temple Mount did not comport with her contemporaneous reporting. As she was preparing to leave her prestigious post, she needed a "nuanced" report that showed her sophistication that challenged assumptions that Arafat was the bad guy who rejected peace. More accurately it demonstrated sophistry. She was party to rewriting history in order to absolve a terrorist from blame he so richly deserved. That's not journalism.

There are three other data points to keep in mind.

1) Ha'aretz reported in mid-August 2000 (via IMRA) that Arafat was granting "extended vacations" to leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.


Over the past several weeks, the Palestinian Authority has granted extended
vacation leaves to dozens of jailed Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, among
them militants who were involved in serious terror attacks against Israel.

Israeli military authorities view the return of the Palestinian "revolving
door" with mounting concern.

2) The first fatality of the Aqsa intifada David Biri was killed prior to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

3) Dennis Ross reported the following (via It's Almost Supernatural)

I bid good-bye to the Palestinians at about 4pm. Two hours later Dani Yatom called me and said Israel had hard evidence that the PA were planning massive, violent demonstrations throughout the West Bank the next morning, ostensibly a response to the Sharon visit.

Dani was very clear: This would be a disaster.[...] Through their own channels the Israelis had sent messages to Arafat about the planned violence and there had been no response; it was up to us to persuade Arafat to prevent the violence.

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount did not spark spontaneous violence. The violence orechstrated by Arafat took off the next day.There were plenty of credulous reporters and peace processors who chose to gloss over the evidence that Arafat had instigated the violence. But there's no getting around this reality.

Sassinfras can continue to make his counter factual claims because much of the media was negligent in reporting what really happened. The media were aided and abetted by professional peace processors who generally are unwilling to admit that their fundamental assumptions about peace - starting with their belief that Arafat had changed - were dead wrong.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 31, 2009 6:46 PM
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Comments

The truth is the Palestinians paid a high price for the Second Intifada. Israel's mistake then was in not driving it home by renouncing the Oslo experiment. If it had, Sderot would never have come under fire and there would be no talk of a TSS today. But Israel's leaders convinced themselves Arafat's potential successor would be more amenable to a final settlement than Arafat was. That illusion has been dispelled. But the attempts to rewrite history to justify Palestinian obduracy have a clear agenda and its not one intended to promote peace and coexistence.

Posted by: NormanF at May 31, 2009 10:32 PM

I'm so glad you finally responded to that moonbat sass's distortions and misinformation.

Posted by: Laura at June 1, 2009 11:44 AM

all that effort to discredit the truth.
still you cannot deny that it was reported soon after that arafat did warn barack
The Provocation
URI AVNERY
Gush Shalom, 1 October 2000
Barak played a shameful part in the provocation. As the Prime Minister, he is responsible for the peace process. As Minister of Defense, he is responsible for the life and security of the country's inhabitants, Israelis and Palestinians. Both offices obliged him to prevent Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, the bloody results of which could be easily foreseen.
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/234

the provocative al aqsa walk about which certainly triggered even if it did not in the deeper sense,cause the intifada; that even if the palestinians had started the the violence, it was, in the early stages at least, essentially unarmed,a resumption of the first intifadas 'uprising of stone'; that the israelis themselves turned it very lethal indeed with their swift and massive recource to the firing of live ammunition against demonstrators; that in the first month the ratio of fatalities was 20 palestinians to one israeli, a disparity reduced to only 10 to 1 by the end of the 3rd month; that organisations such as amesty international, americas human rights watch or physicians for human rights amply documented the extra-judical executions that had so quickly got under way, the gratuitous brutality, the wanton and unnecessary shooting to kill or injure, the reckless desregard for standard methods of riot control.
no , the american punditocacy decided , if the palestinians were dying in such large numbers it was largely their own- and especially their leaderships- fault, not that of the israeli soldiers who were killing them 'arafat has encouraged his youth legions to write their refusal in a blood that is mostly their own.' thus wrote the washington post. a long standing ,but long discredited, israeli perception of itself- as a nation wedded to 'self restraint' and 'purity of arms' in battle- premeated american commentary. the washington post conceded that 'israels measures against the rioters are sometime excessive', but it called its use of helicopter gunships and missile attacks aganst palestinian towns 'largely symbolic reprisal attack. the obvious explanation for the self sacrifical palestinian zeal was fury against the continuing occupation.

Posted by: sass at June 7, 2009 2:04 PM

If you trust Uri Avinery, you are quite gullible.

Not entirely surprising since you still seem to think Arafat as being honorable.

Posted by: soccer dad at June 7, 2009 2:26 PM

'Only when he sought to rewrite his legacy did he claim that he asked Barak not to let Sharon walk. At the time he voiced no objections.'

was Uri Avinery penning arafats legacy a week after the start of the al aqsa intafada.

Posted by: sass at June 7, 2009 8:11 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?