That's the best description I can think of for this travesty of journalism by John Ward Anderson that appeared in Tuesday's Washington Post. Had this article appeared on the editorial page of the Arab News or the Jordan Times, it wouldn't have surprised me. But as a "special report" in a major American newspaper? For shame!
There's too much wrong with this diatribe to tackle in one post. I'll focus on just a few isolated paragraphs here and trust others will take care of the rest. Otherwise, perhaps I'll be back.
We start with the title: Israel Hems In a Sacred City: Encircling of Jerusalem Complicates Prospects for Peace. Not just "a" sacred city, bub, "our" sacred city. Our capital, the physical center of our religion and our heritage, our one and only kibla (to borrow a phrase). Jerusalem may have plenty of sites sacred to other religions, but it's not the center of any save one: Judaism. Always has been, and always will be, even if (God forbid) it is someday ripped from our cold, dead hands.
That dispensed with, need I point out, yet again, that Israel is hemming nothing in, but trying, desparately, to hem terrorists out? Excuse her. She simply wants to put an end to the horrific mass murders of her citizens, after having tried diplomacy, negotiations, concessions, military force, more concessions, on and on for decades. I know. It's too much to ask. But there you have it.
As for complicating prospects for peace, well, yes, it's the fence that's doing that. Suicide bombers, armed attacks on children in their beds, the random abduction and murder of innocent civilians, which the fence is designed to reduce, if not prevent, don't complicate the prospects for peace. But the barrier itself does. Get it?
So much for the title. It's straight downhill from there.
Projects to cut off access to Jerusalem to Palestinians living in the West Bank, which borders the city on three sides, have accelerated since the start of the current Palestinian uprising in September 2000. Today, Jewish settlements outside the city have been integrated with the urban core, redrawing the map of Jerusalem and complicating any negotiations over its future and the future of West Bank settlements, Israeli and Palestinian experts say.
We've heard all this before. It's simply a pack of lies. The only palestinians that Israel is trying to cut off from access to Jerusalem are those who are coming with explosives strapped to their bodies or knives, guns and grenades in their backpacks. And while Anderson does, in fact, manage to dredge up a few Israelis to quote in support of his premise, those Israelis are, without exception, members of the lunatic left fringe (e.g., Jeff Halper), without accoutability or credibility in the general population.
The web of projects includes 13 settlements to the north of the city that are being linked with each other and with Jerusalem by access roads that act as physical barriers to Palestinian communities. To the east, Israel has approved expansion of the West Bank's largest settlement, Maleh Adumim, to absorb a swath of Palestinian land between the community and East Jerusalem. To the south, access and bypass roads and Jewish settlements have carved Palestinian lands into a checkerboard.
Once upon a time, there were no "bypass roads" in Israel. No "physical barriers" were necessary. Then, suddenly, "stones" began to rain down on cars with Jews in them in certain areas, smashing windshields and heads. Rifle shots began ringing out from roadside bushes, aimed at passenger vehicles and schoolbuses. Hence, it was necessary to construct roads that "bypassed" the Arab villages that constituted the source of and shelter for the perpetrators of these attacks. Roads with barriers to access by those with murder and mayhem in mind. The roads were expensive and building them was disruptive, but for life to go on, they were necessary. It's a shame, I agree.
As for the notorious incursions into palestinian land, I encourage you to drive from central Jerusalem out past Ma'aleh Adumim (on the relatively safe, newly constructed "bypass road") some day. It's a beautiful trip through mountainous, rocky desert. Much of the area is littered with itinerant Bedouin camps, with tin roofs and goats and camels lounging about. In spring, when there's enough rain, the round, dun-colored hills almost vibrate with the colors of tiny wildflowers amidst a lovely green fuzz of tentative (and short-lived) grass. In short, it's largely a wilderness and has been for a long, long time. Take a look at the WaPo's own maps. They don't make a very good case.
And then we have a bit of historic revisionism. Always kosher if it helps to prove your point.
During the Camp David peace talks in 2000, Ehud Barak, Sharon's predecessor, appeared to accept a U.S. proposal that would have given Palestinians control over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, but the negotiations collapsed. Angered at his concessions, several partners in Barak's government bolted, and the coalition fell apart. In the subsequent elections, Barak was trounced by Sharon, one of the chief architects of Israel's settlement expansion, who often asserts that an undivided Jerusalem is Israel's eternal capital.
An incredible, blatant distortion of history that's just too recent to be excused as either a mistake or sloppy research. The facts: 1) Barak didn't "appear" to accept the U.S. proposal. He did accept it. In fact, he had a hand in designing it. And he promptly went home to try to sell it, where he (understandably) ran into a few snags. 2) The partners in Barak's coalition didn't "bolt," though they threatened to. Barak himself pre-empted them, by calling for early elections. But all of that wasn't until the end of November. So, 3) the disintegration of the coalition wasn't as a result of anger at his concessions (which were made in July). Rather, it was as a result of the consequence of those concessions, combined with the subsequent "collapse" (note the impartial, passive voice here -- it's not as if Arafat just walked out or anything) of the negotiations. (By the way, let's take a look at who some of people slamming those concessions were.)
The consequence in question, of course, was the terror war launched against Israel in September, 2000. But even then, it took a few months of more concessions and Barak's ever-diminishing "red lines," to bring the crisis to a head. We had Sharm. We had Taba. More Israeli concessions and no let-up whatsoever of the terror war. It was only then, in February, that Barak was "trounced" in the elections by Sharon. As he should have been.
From this snippet alone, the downright dishonesty of this article should be readily apparent.
