Below is a list of pieces submitted by members of Palestine Media Watch. If you submit a piece, please send it to pmwatch@zworg.com and I will list it here. Submissions may be rejected if they do not reflect the editorial line of Palestine Media Watch.

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 24, 2000]

The coverage I just read concerning the Palestinian crisis is nauseating. Why don't you write about the reasons behind the violence? Why don't you write about how the Zionists have learned so much from their horrible ordeals in the hands of the Nazis that they have adopted the same heartless tactics against the virtually defenseless Palestinians? Write about how sniper fire kills Palestinian children as they walk home from school. Write about the Zionist-generated Diaspora and genocide that started in the 1920s when the Arabs welcomed the German Jews into their country. Write about how many Arabs are forced to leave their homes and land or be killed. Write about the destruction of Arab-owned fruit trees, houses, etc. Write about cutting off water supplies to the Arabs. Write about how the Arabs are prevented from making a living. Write about how the Israeli per capita income is rising and the Arab's income is plummeting. Write about all the dead children. Write about the rage and frustration of the parents of these murdered children. Write about the US dollars and weaponry that go to support this massive genocide. Write about how the Jews, with only a small percentage of voters nationally hold an abundance of pivotal offices in D. C. Write about the disproportionate influence these people have in decision-making. Write about how a prestigious newspaper blatantly supports genocide by slanting the truth to benefit the aggressor. Write about how politicians cannot get elected without monies from Jewish sources. Then, maybe a lasting peace can be accomplished.

Dorie Alqam -- DorAl377@aol.com

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 24, 2000]

On October 23rd, in your editorial titled: "Difficult Days for Mideast Peace", you wrote: "But more than vague assurances by Mr. Arafat will be needed to contain the current violence." I cannot agree more: an end of the 33-year old Israeli military occupation of Palestinian Territories IS what is needed in order not just to contain, but to eliminate the "violence" altogether.

The main term missing in your analysis of this 'inexplicable' phenomenon of Middle Eastern violence is the 'O' word. It has become something of a taboo in mainstream media to state the simple fact that Israel is present in the West Bank and Gaza as a military occupier. This seemingly 'simple' ommission is very disturbing for several reasons, paramount among them is that it promotes the portrayal of the Palestinian protests as unjustified by reason, and as stemming from some exotic anger, frustration, desire for revenge, 'natural' affinity to violence and other 'quintessentially' Arab characteristics. This line of argumentation, arguably racist at core, cannot help anyone appreciate the true factors that fuel the current 'violence', and therefore is unable to assist your readers in understanding all this bloodshed and turmoil, the protraction of which carries a potentially serious threat to the whole world.

Imagine an article written ten years ago analyzing some political unrest in South Africa, without mentioning Apartheid; or imagine some historical analysis of Nazi atrocities in World War II ommiting the holocaust. Both cases would be perceived as utterly misleading, if not intellectually dishonest. Writing abotu the Palestine/Israel conflict without mentioning the Israeli occupation falls in the same category of unjustifiable and indeed 'inexplicable' ommissions.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 24, 2000]

Ms. Susan Sachs article today on the Arab Summit contained a few inaccurate points.

1. She wrote: "They urged the United Nations to set up a war crimes tribunal to judge Israeli actions ...". Well, if you refer to the excerpts of the statement listed in the Times itself, the Tribunal suggested is to be "dedicated to trying Israeli criminals of war who committed massacres against the Palestinians and the Arabs in the occupied land ...". The phrasing is quite different in meaning, spirit and intention from what Ms. Sachs wrote.

2. Ms. Sachs also wrote: "The Arab leaders, who have unanimously backed the Palestinian demand for Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem, also noted that Jerusalem's status was internationally acknowledged as a subject for negotiation." In fact, this second part was never mentioned, neither in letter nor in spirit in the official statement that came out of the Arab Summit. It is simply NOT there. On the contrary, the statement reiterated in several places that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians (in various forms), including a precedent definition of occupied Palestinian lands as reaching the June 4th borders, along with the Golan Heights. For many years now, most Arab leaders had held that Jerusalem was subject to negotiation between the parties involved. In this Summit, Arafat managed to extract from them a clear cut statement that ALL of lands occupied by Israel after June 4th 1967, including all of East Jerusalem are occupied lands subject to UN resolution 242, and must return to Palestinian sovereignty.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 24, 2000]

Reading Ms. Sontag's article today, I have to conclude that she refuses to attempt to be objective. She repeated the mistake of stating as fact that "Gilo" is a "neighborhood of Jerusalem". I wrote to CNN, Washington Post, LA Times, and New York Times about this "slip"; ALL except for the NY Times seem to have checked the information and therefore introduced modifications on describing Gilo. CNN, for example, now says that it is a "Jewish neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem", and in some reports they said that it was built on Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 (today's report by Ms. Sweeney from Jerusalem). In addition, Mr. Lee Hockstader of the Washington Post modified his descritpion of Gilo to read: "on Jerusalem's southern rim".

1. Ms. Sontag's refusal to even check the actual status of Gilo, and her insistence on calling it a "Jerusalem neighborhood" amounts to journalistic dishonesty, not ignorance as I had first suspected. You can even refer to an article in the Israeli paper Haaretz, by Gideon Levy, a couple of days ago on Jewish settlements: in this article he ridicules how Gilo all of a sudden became a neighborhood of Jerusalem, when it is in fact a settlement built on occupied land.

2. Ms Sontag also wrote: "Today, after Arab leaders excoriated the Israelis as expected ...". Even the White House spokesperson acknowledged what he termed the victory of moderation and reason in the Arab Summit's commitment to peace. And as she herself wrote later, Barak's own spokesperson, Nachman Shai, hailed the Summit's statement as a "victory for wisdom and moderation". But, Ms. Sontag still could not find any positive language to describe the outcome of the Summit, prefering to side with Barak's later condemnation of it, than to follow a closer line to the official position of the United States Government, not to mention of independent reason, or common sense. I can only ask WHY?

3. She also wrote: "Mr. Sharon is reviled in the Arab World, which holds responsible for provoking the present violence ...". Well ifyou chose to mention the fact that the Arab World reviles Sharon, then you might as well say the whole truth !! I think everyone writing anything on the Middle East knows by now exactly why Arabs "revile" Sharon. Mr. Hockstader of the Washington Post states (in his article in today's edition) that fact as follows: "Arabs blame Sharon, 72, for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israeli-backed Lebanese militiamen at Beirut refugee camps in 1982." Most Israeli media (including TV) have mentioned this fact numerous times. Still, Ms. Sontag, true to her very selective reporting, chose to omit that.

4. The worst part of Ms. Sontag's article is her biased description of Israeli chopper missile attack on residential areas in Beit Jala. She says: "The boom of missiles hitting their target - a tile and marble factory - resounded in the night, as frightened residents of Beit Jala who did not heed the Israelis' call to evacuate huddled in their homes." It is implied that it is the residents' falt for not "heeding" the Israeli "call". When a military army issues an ultimatum to a civilian population to evacuate their residences to allow the army to shoot, fair journalists usually use other terms than "heed" and "call" in describing this form of terror, Ms. Sontag. According to all interntational conventions governing wars this pratice is conisdered illegal. You make it sound as if the "civilized" Israeli army was noble enought to send a nice message to the lower stratum population who were stupid enough not to listen, and therefore they were attacked by some missiles and were scared as a result !!! In any other war context, such writing would be considered outrageous.

Ms. Sontag's choice of subjects, her very strange approach to her subjects, always defending and excusing Barak's moves and statements, compounded with her almost consistent ommission of meaningful Palestinian views, or even Israeli left views do not lend her any more credibility or professionalism to her already tainted professional image. This can only make me wonder if she is truly the NY Times correspondent, or Mr. Barak's special liaison to the Times!

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - The Dallas Morning News -- October 23, 2000]

I am aghast by the racist comments made by William Murchison in his column "Look east for real hate crimes" (October 18). Mr. Murchison compares the Arab culture to a "mad dog" and proceeds to equate the many Palestinians killed by Israeli fire power to self-sacrificing lunatics. This is truly scandalous beyond words. But what is even more shocking is that you would allow such vile and hate- filled language to appear in print under your own paper's auspices. I sincerely invite you to imagine the consequences of such an action if your were to substitute "Arab" and "Palestinian" by "Jew" or "Black" -- or for that matter, any ethnic group other than Arab. You would probably have a defamation suit in your hands and would be going out of your way to present your most sincere apologies. However, since the target is the lowly Arab, we should only dream.

Ahmed Bouzid -- pmwatch@zworg.com

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 23, 2000]

In her article on October 22nd, titled "Israeli Weighs Contingency Plan ...", Ms. Deborah Sontag failed to obtain any meaningful Palestinian comment/analysis of what this significantly dramatic development would mean to Palestinians, from a Palestinian perspective. Ms. Sontag obtained only ISRAELI views about how the suggested separation would affect Palestinians; she never sought any meaningful Palestinian response. The only response she got from a Palestinian official was that of Yasser Abed Rabbo, and it was just an emotional sound bite, without any content.

This cannot be viewed as coincidence. It has been true of many journalists in the US that they resort to Israelis to get intellectual or analytic commentary, and to Palestinians to get just emotional or otherwise simplistic statements. As CNN discovered lately, Palestinians do have intellectuals and political analysts from a wide spectrum to give more meaningful opinions on current events. When will Ms. Sontag allow Palestinians to speak for themselves in her reports, rather than quoting what Israelis say Palestinians want or don't want??

Of course this separation plan contains many racist policies and principles that evoke many philosophical, ethical and political concerns for Palestinians and Israelis alike; dealing with it as simply a far-fetched plan that is good but difficult to implement is simplistic and evasive.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times -- October 23, 2000]

Again, Mr. Joel Greenberg shows the way in accuracy and objectivity in his article in today's NY Times. Though short, his article contained all the necessary context elements, and representative views from both sides of the divide. Those two elements, in my opinion, are absolutely required in any journalistic approach, especially to such protracted conflicts as the Middle East's.

Bravo Mr. Greenberg for your exemplary reporting. One remark remains: the great majority (more than 70% according to a recent Israeli poll) of "Israeli Arabs" now refer to themselves as Palestinians of Israel. Increasingly, Israeli journalists are gradually accepting this term in referring to Arabs in Israel as well. This is similar to how "black" was replaced by African-American, gradually but surely, after the African-American community clearly decided that the newer term was more accurate in describing that essential component of their identity. Palestinians inside Israel now clearly identify themselves as Palestinians, rather than as just Arabs.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA, 7th) -- October 22, 2000]

The Honorable Curt Weldon:

I am deeply disturbed by the introduction of House Con. Resolution 426 regarding the current unrest in the Middle East, and even more so by your role as one of its co-sponsors. By squarely putting the blame for the current violence on Yasser Arafat, the resolution is totally turning a blind eye to the excessive force Israel has been using against Palestinian civilians. As I am sure you well know, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed during the past three weeks by Israeli fire power, many of them children and toddlers. As you also know, the Israeli Defense Forces have used such heavy weaponry as helicopter gun ships and armor piercing missles, in total violation of the Geneva Convention barring the military from using lethal weapons against civilians. That such a one-sided resolution could be even entertained, let alone formally introduced, is scandalous beyond words, and the only thing I can say is that I am ashamed by your support for it.

I sincerely urge you to reconsider your support for such an unconsciounable resolution. Such unconditional support for Israel will only weaken in the eyes of the Palestinians the United States' claim that it can play the role of honest broker and peace maker. With this resolution, the message you are sending the Palestinians, instead, is this: that you hold the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people in total contempt. This is not the way to push a peace process forward, but rather a way to further inflame already raging passions.

Yours,
Dr. Ahmed Bouzid -- pmwatch@zworg.com
Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org
Wayne, PA 19087

[SUBMITTED - The Washington Post -- October 22, 2000]

Following are some essential comments on Mr. Lee Hockstader's article in today's issue titled: "Arafat: Missing in Action":

1. Mr. Hockstader writes: "Rage, bloodshed and revenge seem the driving forces [for Palestinians, OB] in this fight." Although those three factors mentioned are undeniably there, the writer failed to go a step deeper to uncover the source of this "inexplicable" rage, bloodshed and revenge: that is OCCUPATION. This 'O' word has become something of taboo that is not allowed to be mentioned in most reports on the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Leaving this fundamental source of all violence out essentially promotes the steroetypical view of Arabs as somehow 'genetically' angry, enraged and tempered !! There can be no logic, rationale or any ethical motive to explain this quintessential Arab rage.

Just like talking about the German domination of Europe in WWII without mentioning the holocaust, or talking about the history of the conflict in South Africa without touching on apartheid, or talking about violent riots in Northern Ireland without talking about English occupation and continued domination, any attempt to 'analyze' the roots of the current conflict in Israel/Palestine without having the courage to spell out the 'O' word is at best missing the point, and at worst intentionally misleading.

2. He also writes: "Most embarrassinf for Arafat were ...... torched Joseph's Tomb, a Jewsih holy site in Nablus ....". Please refer to a good context analysis of this particular incident, written by Mr. Joel Greenberg in the New York Times of October 8th. In his objective report, Mr. Greenberg says: "[Jewsih] Believers say the site is the burial place of Joseph, one of the biblical patriarchs, though numerous historians dispute that it truly holds his remains." All Palestinians know that this place was never sacred to any Jew, until a fanatic settler movement wanted to create a foothold in the middle of Nablus, and therefore decided to fabricate some religious significance of this place. By the way, this is not an isolated incident. Ever since the creation of Israel in 1948, many Islamic shrines have been "discovered" to have some Jewsih significance and turned into temples, or forcefully "shared" with Muslims. Several Israeli military and political analysts, right before the Israeli Army decided to withdraw from the Joseph's Tomb site, started revealing the truth that this place was not really any tomb of a biblical figure. Soon after the indefensible damage brought upon the place, almost all retracted on their earlier statements, simply referring to the place as a "holy Jewish shrine" !!!!

In all cases, whether Mr. Hockstader chooses this or that story, I believe that he ought to present this "Jewish holy site" as one point of view, mostly held by fanatic Jewsih settlers, rather than writing it without any reference, as if it were an agreed upon fact.

3. He also writes: "Frequently caught between rioting Palestinians and Israeli troops, the Palestinian police ....seemed impotent to hold back the [Palestinian] mobs." He then says: "making it easy for the [Palestinian] rioters to besiege Israeli outposts and checkpoints." This portrayal of the savage mobs of uncontrollable Palestinians besieging the poor Israeli soldiers is not only a case study in inverted logic and blaming the victim, but also has racist undertones, I am sorry to say. It is simply unacceptable to describe young Palestinian protestors, struggling for freedom and independence as "mobs" "besieging Israeli soldiers". There is no parity here: one party is an extremely powerful OCCUPYING power, even according to American policy, the other a largely unarmed civilian population, that is OCCUPIED. The first "besieged" party shoots to kill (please refer to your colleague Keith Richburg's report yesterday on the bloody events that took place in Nablus on Friday October 20th). The second party keeps dying !! With more than 130 killed and four thousand wounded Palestinians, mostly due to live bullets or rubber-coated metal bullets fired at close range to their upper-body parts, and with overwhelming proof that the great majority of those deaths happened in stone-throwing incidents that never presented any "life-threatening" situation to the 'poor' Israeli soldiers (please refer to the extensive and objective report by Human Rights Watch, issued this month).

Failing to have this basic knowledge of the context and even the very facts, or knowing those facts but choosing to omit them are both unprofessional and inappropriate for a Washington Post journalist. I suppose that Mr. Richburg's (and similarly objective) findings as well as the Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International's findings can be conveniently made available to all those writing on the Middle East to assure some unbiased knowledge of the facts, and therefore to guarantee a higher sensitivity to the issues and to the large spectrum in views and opinions. To over represent one side, especially when that side is the unequivocal root of the violence can only raise doubts about the motives of any writer on this conflict.

I sincerely hope that your reputable paper will check and double-check information provided by one side and completely opposed by the other, as well as by most objective bystanders.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University
Israel

[SUBMITTED - The Los Angeles Times -- October 21, 2000]

First, I thank you for the comprehensive scope of your article, titled "Mideast Fighting Grows ...", for you succeeded in covering several issues in a small space.

However, I would like to point out some unintended inaccuracies in your report, hoping that you will investigate my comments, and if any proves correct, that you will invest a special effort to avoid falling into them in the future. The Los Angeles Times is well-established as a fair and more or less objective media source of high integrity; and it is precisely due to those high standards that I voice my concern here about some inaccuracies, which may taint your otherwise good report.

1. You write: "By Friday evening, the cease-fire .... had collapsed. Each side blames the other .....". On the surface, this "both sides" attempt looks fair, but when we are talking about indiscriminate, cold-blooded, premeditated murder, one cannot be fair to the perpetrator and victim together. Well, who said that my description of the events are THE "truth" ?? I concluded my description above chiefly from an excellent, detailed, graphic and objective report written by Mr. Keith Richburg (who witnessed the shooting hour by bloody hour) in today's Washington Post on the same incident in Nablus, as well as on other eyewitness accounts by Arab, Israeli and Palestinian journalists from Haaretz newspaper, Al-Jazeera TV and Al-Ayyam newspaper (Palestinian). I am confident that after you read Mr. Richburg's account you shall refrain from using the "both sides blamed each other" approach.

2. You write: "The Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo ... Beit Jala and Beit Sahur". Beit Sahur is geographically far from Gilo and therefore cannot have witnessed any firing on Gilo. Beit Jala is adjacent to Gilo, on the contrary, precisely because Gilo is a Jewish settlement established on mostly Beit Jala Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 by Israel, and later illegally annexed to Jerusalem. According to even US policy, not to mention international law, Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 by force cannot be annexed to Israel. At best, you may consider them as disputed territories, but not a legally-accepted neighborhood of Jerusalem !! It hurts to see that even LA Times journalists can fall into such traps without double-checking their information. I recommend you refer to Israeli human rights group Betselem's reports on settlements to check for yourself whether Gilo is indeed a settlement in 1967 areas or not. Once you verify that claim, please make sure to correct it on your knowledge database for future reference.

3. You write: "On the outskirts of Tulkarm, an Israeli bus ... took a wrong turn." This is the official Israeli Army story. Palestinian sources hold that the bus, loaded with heavily-armed Israeli soldiers was planning an attack on Palestinian-controlled areas when caught. Taking a "wrong turn" is not very typical of the very well-trained Israeli Army, especially in such circumstances. Regardless which side you may or may not believe, and whether you freeze your common sense, why did you fail to report the source of this "wrong turn" claim, and why didn't you report what the Palestinians had to say on this same incident?

Please share this message with the news editor, so that he may, after verifying the information in it, forward it to your colleagues who write on the Middle East.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University, Israel

[PUBLISHED - The New York Times - October 21, 2000]

Once again, I write to voice my concern over some inaccuracies that Ms. Deborah Sontag repeated in her and Mr. William A. Orme Jr.'s article today (October 21st, 2000), as well as over new inaccurate insinuations.

Details:

1. The two journalists wrote: "After Palestinians confronted Israeli soldiers at checkpoints throughout the West Bank, 10 Palestinians were killed in clashes ...". For a graphic and accurate description of what happened in the most bloody of those asserted "confrontations", please refer to today's Washington Post article by Mr. Keith Richburg, who witnessed the whole event and reported it hour by bloody hour. From that far more objective report, we can conclude without doubt that the Palestinians killed in Nablus yesterday were shot in cold blood, by premeditating Israeli army sharpshooters, positioned on hilltops and firing to kill.

Presenting the "facts" as if the Palestinians "died" in some violent exchange is not only incorrect, but biased since this has become a trademark of Ms. Sontag's reporting on Palestinian victims of Israeli violence since the beginning of the current conflict.

2. They also write: "On Thursday, a settlers' hike provoked a gun battle ....". This view presented by the NYT writers as factual, contradicts official Israeli army reports, Palestinian eyewitness accounts and common sense. Officially, Israeli army officials openly admitted that "two mistakes were committed", first giving those settlers a permit to visit that sensitive area, in very close proximity to Palestinian refugee camp Askar, and second the detour that the settlers took, with the full agreement and protection of the Israeli army patrols accompanying them. So, the Israeli army admits that something went wrong when the settlers decided to descend from Mount Eibal and walking (with their weapons and army protection) very close to heavily-populated Palestinian areas. The army viewed giving the permit to them as a mistake especially since two days before, settlers from nearby settlements attacked Palestinian farmers harvesting their olives, killing one Palestinian and wounding several. Please refer to official Israeli Army statements concerning this event. Palestinian eyewitnesses insist that the settlers crossed into Area 'A', which provoked several youths to throw stones at them. The settlers and soldiers opened live fire on the Palestinians killing one and wounding about 15. Only then did armed Palestinian men arrive at the scene and started shooting back killing the settler and injuring 5 settlers and soldiers.

Ignoring both accounts, let's resort to common sense. Armed fanatic Jewish settlers coming very close to a crowded Palestinian neighborhood, with full army protection, diverting from their initial course which they received the permit for cannot be considered taking an innocent hike. I can only wonder why Ms. Sontag and Mr. Orme Jr. decided to take the settlers' view of the events, ignoring the official Israeli Army story, the Palestinian eyewitness accounts and indeed common sense !!

3. They also write: "While many world leaders ...have been impressed with .... Mr. Barak's..". Well this "have been" is what I object to. Current facts show that most world leaders blame the Israeli Government, headed by Mr. Barak, for its excessive use of force, and in some cases for what may amount to "war crimes" (please refer to the latest resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva). With the General Assembly voting 92 to 6 on a resolution condemning Israel (read: Barak) for the violence, I would choose a different tense of the verb to be in describing the mood of the world leaders towards Barak; perhaps "were" or "had been" would be more appropriate !!

4. Again, they write "the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo" !! Please refer to Israeli human rights organization Betselem's report on settlements, and find out for yourself whether Gilo is part of the lands occupied by Israel in 1967 or not. When you do discover the truth, that Gilo is indeed another Jewish settlement on Palestinian land, illegally annexed to Jerusalem, please make an effort to correct this error in your reporting.

I appreciate the difficulty of having to check and double-check every piece of information, lest a journalist (with a reputable paper as the NYT) should be accused of bias, inaccuracy or disinformation; but I am confident that you can forge a mechanism to check on news from varied sources to assure accuracy and objectivity, especially when (as I've done) someone points out some of the consistent inaccuracies reported. If the Washington Post can do it (in most cases, any how), I am sure you can as well.

Omar Barghouti -- jenna@palnet.com
PhD Student
Tel Aviv University, Israel

[PUBLISHED - Jazz programers on line forum - October 20, 2000]

Thank you everyone for your concern and personal messages regarding the situation in my homeland, Palestine. The Voice of Palestine (official radio station) was bombed last week and all local radio stations have been on an emergency programming period to report the news and other emergency issues. Sadly, this means that Night Rhythms, my jazz radio show that I have been doing for over three years, is off the air for now, until further notice…. This makes me sad. We have been living the past 3 weeks in relative anxiety, fear, and despair. Hearing the bullets and the bombs coming from the Israeli side against mostly young kids. I would love to be objective about this and blame both sides about the violence but it just not that simple for one simple fact: ALL the violence is happening on Palestinian land and the overwhelming majority of people killed and maimed are Palestinians, and mostly children.

I got a call from my dear friend and great saxophonist Arnie Lawrence who is living in Israel to wish me and my family safety and peace in these trying times when JAZZ and my love for it have been tested. I find it hard listening to music when my thoughts are constantly turbulent about my future and my family's future.... I cannot even find peace in it... it is that bad. I am also reading a book by South African writer Andre Brink. It is amazing how much I, as a Palestinian, relate with the black apartheid experience of South Africa.

As I write this letter, I hear helicopters in the distance. I hope it is just that and not something more serious.

I pray that everyone is safe all over the world. I hope that the spirit Of Jazz will rekindle my hope for a brighter future when darkness will be lifted from the souls of my people. I apologize for using this forum for this message, but I believe it is important to know how Jazz and art was affected by all this.

On the other hand, in August this article was written on the other aspect of Jazz... in the area..

http://www.jazzkc.org/covers/2000-08language.htm

"Cause I'm just a soul whose intentions are good Oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood"

Peace

Bassem Nasir -- BNASIR@birzeit.edu

Amwaj 91.5 FM

Palestine

[SUBMITTED - The Philadelphia Inquirer - October 16, 2000]

Time has perhaps come for Israel to realize that it can no longer live in the past and that today it faces a new world order less hospitable to its intransigent and belligerent ways.  The most important aspect of this new world order is the reality that the top leadership has changed in Arab countries key to the so-called Peace Process.  Gone are Hafez el-Assad, King Hussein, and King Hassan of Morocco.  The last two were Israel’s biggest allies in the process, while the first, one of its sworn enemies.  But what they all shared in common is that they all held their countries and their armies in a tight grip.  No more.  Their heirs have shown us how tenuous their inexperienced hold is: of all the Arab countries, Morocco would have been the last one to allow the massive demonstrations that Rabat and Casablanca have witnessed the past two weeks.  With a weaker leadership, the Palestinian problem can no longer be used so cynically, as it has for the last fifty some years, by Arab tyrants that care more about consolidating their internal power and enhancing their strategic position in the region, than they care about the true welfare of the Palestinian people.  Hafez el-Assad senior did not want the Palestinians to make headways on their own, lest he lose the strength of his bargaining position; King Hussein wanted the Palestinian case closed as soon as possible, regardless what it meant for the Palestinians; while King Hassan, way far away from Israel, mainly aimed his opening to Israel to serve as a means for him to consolidate his long-standing friendship with the United States.  Now that those strong leaders are gone, the new leadership, facing the prospect of a spill-over of Palestinian rage into their own streets, must listen more carefully to public Arab opinion -- and the Arab public, less cynical and manipulative than its leadership, wants justice and dignity, pure and simple, for the Palestinian people.

Ahmed Bouzid -- pmwatch@zworg.com

The author is President of Palestine Media Watch, a Philadelphia-based media watch group that monitors American coverage of Middle East issues. http://www.pmwatch.org

[SUBMITTED - The Seattle Times- October 11, 2000]

In your editorial (October 11, 2000), you write that "Israel is right to offer a sharp ultimatum to Yasser Arafat to end the violence." You could not be more wrong, I am sorry to say. At a sensitive time such as last week, with rage boiling over at the massacre of scores of Palestinian stone throwers, and with the indelible images of 12 year old Mohamed Al-Durra crouching in terror behind his father, only to be shot to death by four Israeli bullets, still fresh in the minds of not just Palestinians, but the whole Arab and Muslim world, issuing an unrepentant, arrogant ultimatum was the worst thing that Ehud Barak could have done to calm down the situation. Had Yasser Arafat even hinted that he was about to comply with the ultimatum, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with Palestinian and Arab sentiment today can tell you, he would have been branded a traitor and then summarily toppled off his perch and replaced with a leadership less pliable than his subservient and corrupt Palestinian Authority. Not an unwelcome development, many Palestinians would readily to confess, but I am sure that this is not what you had in mind. The right thing for Israel to have done to calm down the situation, and still could do, is to retreat at once from the occupied territories, to cease and desist from shooting at crowds of demonstrators, and to engage the Palestinians in honest negotiations that go beyond the charade of the current Peace Process.

Ahmed Bouzid ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[SUBMITTED - NPR Radio- October 10, 2000]

I am writing to thank you and acknowledge that you are at long last paying some attention to the serious violence by Jewish mobs against Palestinians inside Israel. All Things Considered featured an interview with Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of Israel's parliament, and a citizen of Israel. A Jewish mob of about 500 people attempted to burn down his house, and in ensuing attacks on Arab residents, two were shot dead apparently by Israeli police.

Following Bishara, there was an interview with Edna Rodrig, the Israeli deputy mayor of Upper Nazareth (a Jewish development town built on land largely confiscated from Palestinians from Nazareth), in which the attacks occurred. Rodrig deplored the attack on Bishara and said it made her "ashamed." This is admirable, no doubt. But when host Robert Siegel asked her what she thought drove Jews to act in such a riotous way, she averred that it was the "extremist" politics of people like Mr. Bishara that "inflamed" them to do it. In other words, the Arabs made me do it and I am not responsible for my actions. As far as I know, Mr. Bishara is not a war criminal. He never invaded Lebanon or oversaw massacres like those at Sabra and Shatila. He has not barged upto the Western Wall in Jerusalem accompanied by 1000 armed men. Palestinian citizens of Israel are not occupying Jewish towns and seizing Jewish-owned land. Palestinian citizens do not strut around Jewish communities with Uzis slung over their shoulders. Palestinian citizens of Israel do not have a monopoly on political power which they use to discriminate against Jews. Mr. Bishara has lived as a loyal, law abiding citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset. He preaches equality for all citizens of Israel regardless of their religion or ethnicity. He has even helped keep the great angel of peace, Ehud Barak in power.

And yet, are we really expected to believe that Mr. Bishara incited good, upstanding Israeli Jews to kill, riot and burn houses, cars and mosques? At the same time, we are inundated with arguments that the extreme provocations of Ariel Sharon, a notorious war criminal, on top of the daily humiliations of decades of unrelenting military occupation, and racism are no excuse for Palestinians to rise up.

There is a deep double standard here, which runs throughout coverage of what is happening--not just on NPR. When Jews attack and kill Palestinians it is merely a "reaction." When Serbs rise up and burn their own parliament it is a heroic throwing off of tyranny and a new dawn for democracy. Then there are the Palestinians who are told that they have the right only to endure occupation willingly and quietly, or else be blamed by the whole world (or at least most of the US media and establishment) for "disrupting the peace process" and threatening the existence of Israel. It is, I have to tell you, exhausting.

Finally, I wish to object to the prominent inclusion of Israeli analyst Reuven Hazon in Jennifer Ludden's report this afternoon. Mr. Hazon was already prominently featured on Morning Edition today. Surely among the five million-odd Israelis there was some room for a variety of voices. We have yet to hear from progressive Israeli Jews who see what is going on for what it is and are trying to convince their fellow citizens to choose the path of sanity. I note in particular groups such as the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Physicians for Human Rights and Gush Shalom, all of which have issued positions that Americans, who are asked to pay the bill for the killing machines, ought to have a chance to hear.

Ali Abunimah -- ali@abunimah.org -- http://www.abunimah.org

[SUBMITTED - The Washington Post - October 10, 2000]

In his column ("Joseph's Tomb", October 10) , Richard Cohen laments the breach of faith committed by the Palestinians: with their violence, they have proven Ariel Sharon right, Mr. Cohen writes, and then adds this shocking sentence: "[Ariel Sharon's] view of the Palestinians as unpredictable, unreliable partners in peace has been vindicated--at least temporarily." To begin with, anyone who possesses even a cursory understanding of Arab and Muslim sensitivities, could have easily predicted that a visit from a figure such as Ariel Sharon, reviled by Palestinians and throughout the whole Muslim and Arab world as a war criminal, to a site such as Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest place in the Muslim world, would not have considered the Palestinian outrage "unpredictable". Moreover, the violence, and its protracted nature, can shock only those who have readily accepted the canard that the Israelis have been overly generous in their offers, or those who have been fooled into thinking that Israel's treatment of Palestinians under Barak has ushered a new era of civilized behavior from the Israelis. Indeed, after seven years of negotiations and face-to-face talks and trust-building, one would have expected the Israelis to show at least a modicum of restraint before opening fire on stone throwing youngsters. Instead, we have Barak issuing ultimatums and threatening to unleash the fire of the Israeli army, proving widespread Arab sentiment right: that Israel has never changed its ways and that below the surface, it still firmly believes that when things don't go its way, it can enforce its will through its fire power. I wonder who is guilty of breaching the faith!

Ahmed Bouzid -- ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[SUBMITTED - The Washington Post - October 9, 2000]

Robert Satloff's column of October 9th ("Avoiding War"), illustrates quite succinctly the arrogance and the complete disconnect with reality that pro-Israeli public opinion shapers in the United States suffer from. Lapsing back with the greatest of ease to the old language of "Arabs-bad-Israelis-good", Mr. Satloff explains to us that the whole world -- literally, and including the United States -- is wrong in condemning Israel's violent actions against Palestinian demonstrators. He then proceeds to admonish the Clinton administration for not being hard enough on the Palestinians in particular, and Arabs in general. What the administration should do, he does not mince his words, is this: exert all of its leverage on each and every Arab state that has a stake in the Peace Process and literally force them to comply with Israel's wishes. The fact that Arab leaders are facing an unprecedented show of public outrage does not seem to occur to Mr. Satloff as something to factor into the reality equation. It also does not occur to Mr. Satloff that perhaps there is an easier way to bringing the confrontation back from the brink of disaster: that Israel evacuate the territories it illegally occupies, and hold its fire against rock throwing demonstrators. But no, instead of going to the mountain, Mr. Satloff prefers that we bring the mountain to him, one rock at a time.

Ahmed Bouzid ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[SUBMITTED - The New York Times- October 8, 2000]

Thomas Friedman's flippant column of October 6th could have been humorous under lighter circumstances, but his finger wagging and moralizing at Yasir Arafat at a time when Israelis are training helicopter gunships on stone throwing demonstrators and killing innocent children, are simply out of place. As usual, and in his inimitable way, Mr. Friedman managed to reduce the decades-long, complex Middle East tragedy to a neat little parable about a greedy Arab who will not accept the generosity offered to him by peace-loving Israelis. The spontaneous reaction of a frustrated people against the vile provocation of Ariel Sharon, Mr. Friedman dismisses as an unwise tactical blunder on the part of Yasir Arafat: such a response sends "a message to Israelis that if that area is under your control you will decide which 'good' Israelis can visit and which 'bad' Israelis can't," Mr. Friedman explains. But his bias and superficiality came out a-blaring when he wrote: "Do I need to remind you that an Israeli commission of inquiry found him indirectly responsible for the massacre of innocent Palestinian men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982?" The logical thing to follow this statement should have been an admonishment directed against Mr. Barak: knowing this, why didn't he try to dissuade Mr. Sharon from throwing a match at the tinder box? And why hasn't he, to this day, condemned Mr. Sharon for making that fateful visit? But no, as far as Mr. Friedman is concerned, the whole burden lies on that Arab, Mr. Yasir Arafat. Mr. Friedman should know better. Violence begets violence, and in this conflict, as in any other between the Palestinians and the Isarelis, the lion's share of killing and maiming has been inflicted by the Israelis. If Mr. Friedman's sympathies did not lie squarely with Israel, he would not waste his time writing such drivel and instead would join the rest of the world in calling on Israel to bring the hostilities to a stop by holding its fire.

Ahmed Bouzid - ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[SUBMITTED - The Washington Post- October 7, 2000]

In your editorial (October 7), you complain that Mr. Arafat's "inflexibility" might well result in the ousting of the Ehud Barak government and the collapse of the peace coalition in Israel. You then ask rhetorically: "Does Mr. Arafat hope to get a better deal from Mr. Sharon or from former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu?" It does not occur to you to ask, however, that another balance needs to be maintained on the other side: that of the Palestinians. Your admonishment of Mr. Arafat rests on a revealing simplistic misconception about the current crisis: the premise that Yasser Arafat has absolute control over all the Palestinian factions, and that he can stop the popular uprising at will. The fact is that Mr. Arafat's control over crumbling coalition is as tenuous as Mr. Barak's is of his, if not less. And as the weakness of his grip on the situation becomes more obvious by the day, so will his bargaining position on the negotiating table shrink. With Arafat's marginalization, the Peace Process as we know it may as well be declared dead in the water. Mr. Sharon, who surely would not be altogether displeased by such a development, will then have to deal with the less pliable Hamas. Ironically, many Palestinians, who have watched in dismay Arafat's inability to stand firm in the face of Israeli intransigence, belligerence, and disregard for treaties and agreements, would also not be too displeased to see Hamas become the negotiating partner that Israel must engage if a lasting peace is to be reached at long last.

Ahmed Bouzid -- ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[SUBMITTED - Philadelphia Inquirer - October 7, 2000]

Your editorial of October 3rd ("Peace under fire"), along with the letters to the editor of October 6th that voiced support for Israeli actions, share in common a glaring simplistic misconception about the current crisis: they all rest on the premise that Yasir Arafat has absolute control over the situation and that he can stop the popular uprising at will. The fact is that Arafat is as much in control of the volatile situation as the Israelis are, if not less. And as the weakness of his grip on the situation becomes more obvious by the day, so will his bargaining position on the negotiating table shrink. With Arafat's marginalization, the Peace Process as we know it may as well be declared dead in the water. Mr. Sharon, who surely would not be altogether displeased by such a development, will then have to contend with confronting the less pliable Hamas. Ironically, many Palestinians, who have watched in dismay Arafat's inability to stand firm in the face of Israeli intransigence, belligerence, and disregard for treaties and agreements, would also not be displeased to see Hamas become the negotiating partner that Israel must engage if a lasting peace is to be reached at long last.

Mohamed Alami -- moh_alami@yahoo.com

[PUBLISHED - Philadelphia Inquirer - October 6, 2000]

Your editorial (Inquirer, Oct. 3) complains that "Yasir Arafat should have exerted himself against the growing violence," but nowhere do you criticize Prime Minister Ehud Barak for failing to exert pressure to dissuade Ariel Sharon from defiantly visiting the Haram al-Sharif - an action that anyone could have predicted would ignite a conflagration on the scale of the 1996 clashes. Arafat is expected to quell spontaneous riots on demand, but it is beyond expectation that the leader of the Israeli government should rein in a member of Parliament.

It is moreover unconscionable to state, after the horrible images of the innocent Palestinian boy dying in his father's arms in a hail of bullets, that "Palestinian charges of excessive Israeli force from Gaza to Nazareth seem unpersuasive." If the use of tanks, anti-armor rockets and helicopter gunships, as well as the quickly mounting toll of dead and injured, are not signs of excessive use of lethal force, I sincerely wonder what is.

Ahmed Bouzid - ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

See original submission

[SUBMITTED - Philadelphia Inquirer - October 1, 2000]

Do words exist to describe the horror of watching a screaming boy die in a hail of bullets? Do words exist to describe the horror of watching a father trying in vain to protect his son, only to watch him die in his arms? What has the strutting General have to say today to that father? What could he possibly have to say that would not sound like a foul, sacrilegious insult? Could we blame the father if he were to swear enmity, 'til death, to those who killed his son, or should we instead cheer him: pick up a stone and throw it at them, and pick another one and throw it again, in the name of your son's dying tears? Mothers and fathers: what is your answer?

Ahmed Bouzid - ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com

[PUBLISHED - Philadelphia Inquirer - September 19, 2000]

Jerome Verlin ("Control of Jerusalem", September 15) seeks to establish in his letter that only Israel, on grounds of historical precedence, has had legitimate claim to Jerusalem. The Palestinians, in his view, "have never politically controlled" the city, and so, it is inaccurate, he complains, to describe their effort as one of attempting to "regain" rather than simply "gain" that control. Mr. Verlin is being more than merely fastidious about correct usage: he is honoring a long-standing tradition in pro-Israeli rhetoric that aims to make us believe, but without saying it outright, that the Palestinians are foreigners in their own land and that therefore they do not deserve the basic right of governing their own lives. But two can play at that game.

What Mr. Verlin neglects to observe is the following inconvenient fact: as things stand today, the international community, including the U.S., has yet to recognize Israeli sovereignty even over *West* Jerusalem, let alone East Jerusalem, both of which are officially still considered "occupied land". In other words, since its modern inception, Israel may have had *physical* control over Jerusalem (both halves of which it seized by force, in 1948 and in 1967), but it has never had *politically recognized* control over the holy city. Mr. Verlin and those who will defend Israel, no matter what, should have the courage to stop pretending that principles or historical legitimacy could ever seriously justify Israel's relentless and illegal expansion; the one unswerving guiding tenet that Israel has always observed religiously can be summed up in the old Zionist dictum: "another dunum, another goat" -- build, annex, occupy, displace and exile, with the aim of prevailing eventually by the sheer reality of the *fait accompli*. Imperialism by the inch -- that is how Israel has acquired its territories, and Jerusalem is no exception to that rule.

Mohamed Alami - moh_alami@yahoo.com