An action letter from CAMERA

CAMERA is the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. They sent out an action letter, which I think you’ll find interesting:

On June 3, The Chicago Tribune published a column by DePaul professor Marda Dunsky in its Perspective section entitled “U.S. on a disastrous course; Aid from Washington has effectively sustained the Israeli occupation.” The journalism professor uses the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War as an opportunity to fault America and Israel for all of the Palestinians’ problems over the last four decades.

* In her rendition of the last forty years, Arabs and Palestinians are blameless. Not one mention in her column of Arab aggression, Arab rejectionism, or Palestinian terrorism (other than one off-hand reference, only mentioned to deny Arafat’s involvement in terrorism).

Israel gained control of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem as a result of Arab aggression and refusal to accept Israel’s existence. If the Arabs had not sought to annihilate Israel in 1967, Israel would never have gained control over the territories. She also omits the fact that Israel was prepared to give back much of the territory conquered in 1967, but was faced with the Arabs’ refusal to accept Israel, as underscored in the infamous three “no’s” – no recognition, no negotiation and no peace – issued on September 1, 1967 at the summit of Arab leaders in Khartoum.

* She misrepresents the 2000 Camp David summit, as well as the meaning of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. :

“The failed 2000 Camp David summit, under the aegis of the Clinton administration, presented the Palestinians with a new, U.S.-brokered approach to peace that reframed the rules of the process, according to former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison. ‘Contrary to previous expectations [based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338],’ Christison wrote, ‘Palestinians must come to the peace process expecting to bargain over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, not to obtain their return.’ “

It’s interesting that Dunsky chooses to use someone as unreliable and extreme as Kathleen Christison as a source. In a 2002 article, Christison falsely claimed that “Israelis do deliberately shoot Palestinian children.” And, in a demonstration of her ignorance of even the most basic history of the region, Christison wrote: “Before there was terrorism, there was the occupation. Before there was terrorism, there were settlements.” Arab terror against Jews in Palestine actually began in 1920, well before the modern state of Israel was created, well before there was a single Palestinian Arab refugee or any land gained by Israel in its defensive wars. See here, here and here for details.

Dunsky (and her unreliable source) misleadingly implies that UN Resolutions 242 and 338 called for Israel to withdraw from all the territory gained in the Six Day War. This is simply not true. Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242. He wrote:

“Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 … rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to ’secure and recognized borders,’ which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949…. The omission of the word ‘the’ from the territorial clause of the Resolution was one of its most hotly-debated and fundamental features. The U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, and many other countries worked hard for five and a half months in 1967 to keep the word ‘the’ and the idea it represents out of the resolution. Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council….Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position.” (Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990)

In Dunsky’s deceptive version of the 2000 Camp David summit, Palestinians are again exonerated of any responsibility in the failed negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. She neglects to mention that it was Arafat who rejected the Barak/Clinton offer in 2000 to create a Palestinian state, in which Israel would cede much of the territory captured in 1967. Arafat walked away from the negotiations without even offering a counter-proposal.

*The journalism professor is highly critical of the US for vetoing one-sided resolutions condemning Israel alone. She writes:

“Moreover, since 1970, the United States has cast half of its UN Security Council vetoes — 41 out of a total 82 — to shield Israel from international censure of its policies of occupation, annexation and military action.”

During the seventies, the Arab, Soviet, and Third World countries aligned, creating a pro-PLO voting bloc that virtually guaranteed any resolution against Israel, no matter how preposterous and unfair, would be passed by the UN Security Council. The voting bloc also meant that any resolution condemning the Arab countries for their violence against Israel or for their lack of human rights would very likely be voted down. This practice has continued until today. Virtually all of the resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict drafted and passed focused on condemning Israel alone, regardless of the circumstances.

For instance, the US vetoed the Dec. 19, 2002 resolution drafted by Syria and passed by the Council that condemned only Israel for the death of a U.N. worker who was shot during a firefight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in Jenin.

Emblematic of its skewed agenda, the UN has been obsessively focused on Israel for decades, devoting a third of its energy to criticizing the Jewish state, while very rarely condemning the Arab states and the Palestinians for major human rights violations and/or the thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel.

* Dunsky writes: “The continuing injustice and suffering that the Israeli occupation has brought on the Palestinians has served as a focal point for resentment toward the United States in the Muslim world. Jihadists who seek to harm Americans and U.S. interests have made the conflict a rallying cry.”

It’s a focal point because Muslim leaders have intentionally made it one. They have often stoked the issue to divert attention away from domestic problems and the lack of freedom in their countries.

*Much of the column is devoted to criticizing Israeli settlements, casting them as the main obstacle to peace, while Dunsky omits any substantive mention of Palestinian terrorism.

*She erroneously states there is a “consensus” that Jewish communities in territory occupied by Israel since 1967 have “no legal validity.” In fact, many legal experts, including Julius Stone and former U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, have argued that Israel’s settlements are legal. For details, click here.

* In keeping with her theme of overlooking Palestinian wrongdoing, she claims there is no evidence linking Arafat to Palestinian terrorism:

“The Bush administration backed Israel’s military and diplomatic isolation of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat based on unproved allegations that he was tied directly to Palestinian violence against Israelis.”

In fact, there is extensive evidence Arafat was directly tied to Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. The detailed Israeli analysis documents that: “Yasser Arafat was personally involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks. He encouraged them ideologically, authorized them financially, and personally headed the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade organization.”

Furthermore, Arafat frequently voiced support for terrorism even while negotiating peace with Israel. In 1998, Arafat was quoted in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda saying:

“O my dear ones on the occupied lands, relatives and friends throughout Palestine and the diaspora, my colleagues in struggle and in arms, my colleagues in struggle and in jihad…Intensify the revolution and the blessed intifada…We must burn the ground under the feet of the invaders.” (April 16, 1998)

* Dunsky writes, “During the second Palestinian uprising that followed the summit, the Bush administration backed Israel’s military and diplomatic isolation of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat based on unproved allegations that he was tied directly to Palestinian violence against Israelis. This served to humiliate Palestinians and weaken their confidence in Arafat’s Fatah party.”

Dunsky blames Bush’s policies for Fatah’s election defeat, despite the statements of many Palestinians at the time who blamed Fatah’s rampant corruption and infighting for Hamas’ victory. See here and here.

While columnists are free to voice whatever opinions they choose, opinion pieces are nonetheless required to be free of factual errors.

Action Items

* Ask the Chicago Tribune to correct the factual errors.

1) UN Resolutions 242 and 338 do not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories gained in 1967.

 

2) Arafat’s involvement in terrorism during the Oslo years has been thoroughly documented, contrary to Dunsky’s assertion.

* The Chicago Tribune published Dunsky’s distorted column without balancing it with a piece from the Israeli perspective. Encourage the Chicago Tribune to publish an Op-Ed focusing on the role of Arab rejectionism, incitement and violence in the conflict in the paper’s upcoming Perspective section.

You can email letters to ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com or fax them to 312-222-2598. To mail a letter to the Tribune, write to Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.

* Please send CAMERA a blind copy of your letter: letters@camera.org

Here is the link to Dunsky’s Op-ed.

With thanks,

Deborah Passner

Research Analyst

www.camera.org

By the way, since the Six Day War has resulted in an orgy of articles telling us how infinitely evil Israel is, I thought you’d like to compare how gays are handled in Israel’s repressive society, versus how they’re handled in the purity of an Islamic nation.