Thursday, April 29, 2010

Progress for Americans for Peace Now: For Once, They're Not Completely Off-Base

I must compliment Americans for Peace Now. I received an email from them (technically, from the care2 petitionsite, but really from APN) asking me to send a letter to President Obama encouraging him "to continue to push for Mideast peace" and the content of their proposed letter is not as harmful to the prospects for peace as most of APN's efforts.

In a small step in the right direction, rather than only calling for pressure on the one party (Israel) that's actually working for peace, Americans for Peace Now actually mentions the Palestinian and other Arabs should be pressured.

Unfortunately, that's about all they got even partially right.

Any mention of pressuring the Arabs was in conjunction with pressuring Israel, falsely creating the impression there was an equal need to pressure Israel. It also ignores the reality that pressure on Israel effectively creates negative pressure on the Arabs, encouraging them to continue to obstruct peace.

APN sent an email letter to people whose content was mostly duplicated on the website to which the letter linked. That content is included in this post, along with the text of the misguided letter APN is asking people to send to President Obama.

We analyze some of the content of the website, most of which is duplicated, repeatedly, in the proposed letter to the president.

APN correctly notes "there has been little progress toward peace." Actually, the movement has been away from peace, in large measure because the Obama Administration has been adhering to the sort of misguided policies espoused by APN.

APN incorrectly asserts "Peace talks will never succeed without genuine, sustained American leadership." Despite the best of intentions, American intervention has usually been counterproductive and most of the authentic progress has been made by the parties themselves. The failed Oslo process might have succeeded if America had not tried so hard to make is succeed and, in so doing, enabled the Palestinian Arabs to subvert it without paying a price - at least, without paying any price in addition to the disastrous situation they created for themselves.

In other places, where APN is not superficially evenhanded, it is plainly and generally wrongfully critical of Israel.

APN wrongly endorses what it calls "Obama's response to Israel's expansion of settlements," despite the fact that Israel has not expanded any "settlements" - indeed, it has frozen construction in settlements - and President Obama's creation of an crisis over a routine announcement about future construction in a well-established Jewish community in Israel's capital has set back peace efforts even further.

APN's reference to Obama being able to "defend his policies against right-wing attacks" is an apparently deliberate play into the prejudices of its misguided supporters, who routinely refer to the broad-based, basically middle-of-the-road coalition governing Israel as "right-wing" while carefully avoiding any language that might accurately portray the essentially extremist leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

I suggest a more productive path than that of Americans for Peace Now: Counsel President Obama to start supporting Israel, our only real friend in the Middle East, the party that has continually striven to achieve peace and made countless, unreciprocated concessions. And Counsel President Obama to start pressuring the Arabs, the party that has always rejected peace and today continues to refuse to even negotiate with Israel.

This is the basic content of the website:

Tell Obama to Up the Pressure for Peace for Israel

Target: President Obama

Sponsored by: Americans for Peace Now

President Obama understands that Middle East peace is important for American national security interests, but there has been little progress toward peace. It is time for Obama to step up the pressure on all sides.

Peace talks will never succeed without genuine, sustained American leadership. The Obama administration must be willing to confront Israel, the Palestinians and other Arab states when they fail to take steps toward peace. Obama's response to Israel's expansion of settlements is important -- but it is not enough.

Despite what opponents say, there are few political costs. By taking a strong, consistent stance and putting real pressure on all parties, Obama can defend his policies against right-wing attacks and make real steps toward peace without sacrificing Israel's security.

This is the content of the sample letter on the website:

Dear President Obama,

We all support your statement that Middle East peace is important to American national security interests and we applaud your response to Israel's plans to build more settlements in East Jerusalem. Now it is time for you to step up the pressure -- on all sides -- to make real progress on peace for Israel.

Israelis and the Palestinians are never going to be able to overcome the status-quo forces absent American pressure for them to do so.

Stepping up the pressure doesn't mean taking actions that threaten Israel's security. You have many forms of leverage to bring to bear, including the ability to impose real costs on the parties without cutting US assistance.

Stepping up your efforts on peace will not cost you politically, as some argue. Right-wingers will criticize you on Israel regardless of what you do. By sticking to a consistent, principled approach -- and backing it up with real pressure -- you will be better positioned to defend your policy and even to point to real achievements.

Do not allow the parties to stonewall peace talks. Be prepared to lay down some clear principles on the key final status issues. Be prepared to confront Israel and the Palestinians when they fail to support peace. Those of us who truly care about Israel and about peace want peace negotiations to succeed. We stand ready to support you in this effort.

Sincerely,
[Your name here]

Friday, April 23, 2010

The Real Lesson to be Learned from Israel Apartheid Week

The New Haven Register on April 20 published an op-ed I wrote with the title Neighbors of Israel still resist peace.

An earlier version had been accepted dealing with Israel Apartheid Week, but became outdated by the time the New Haven Register was ready to publish it, hence the revised version.

The following is the original.

The Middle East has no shortage of regimes enforcing different varieties of apartheid.

The eminent civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz places Saudi Arabia first on any list of those repressive regimes. For starters, it practices gender apartheid, sexual orientation apartheid and religious apartheid.

Saudi Arabia prohibits women from working alongside men or even driving cars. It imprisons and executes gays and lesbians. It prohibits open religious observance to all but Muslims. Even during the first Gulf War, when America was saving the Saudis from being destroyed by Saddam Hussein, our soldiers were prohibited from praying!

Needless to say, Saudi Arabia doesn't permit Jews to live there.

The "moderates" among the Palestinian Arabs, led by Fatah, PLO and PA chair Mahmoud Abbas, insist that their future state - if they ever stop rejecting its establishment - be ethnically cleansed of any Jewish presence. They've already made it a crime to sell land to a Jew. And not just any crime, but a capital crime, punishable by execution.

Even the most moderate, pro-Western of the Arab countries, Jordan, bars Jews from citizenship or even owning property. This is even though Jordan encompasses nearly eighty percent of the territory of the Palestinian Mandate, envisioned as the Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration.

There is one exception in the Middle East, one country which is a liberal, Western-oriented democracy, one country which shares most of the same core values as America, one country which cannot reasonably be accused of practicing any form of apartheid.

That country is Israel.

In Israel, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians and dozens of other national and religious groups live together as citizens with equal legal rights. A Druze member of the Knesset, Majallie Whbee, even served as Israel's president for a few days three years ago while Israel's acting president was visiting America!

Members of all these groups own homes and use the same parks, beaches, stores and government services in the country one Israeli described to me not as a melting post but as a stew.

I just returned from two months as a volunteer in that "stew," experiencing first hand the blending of the different ethnic ingredients.

I volunteered peeling potatoes and dicing carrots alongside Arabs and Muslims in a Meir Panim soup kitchen directed by a religious Jew and serving mostly elderly Russian immigrants.

I spent time volunteering at Laniado Hospital, founded by an ultra-Orthodox rebbe, with doctors, nurses and patients coming from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, the professionals working together and all the patients treated with respect.

I visited Connecticut's Partnership 2000 twin, Afula and Gilboa, where Connecticut's Jewish Federations have funded programs for Arab-Jewish coexistence and where the mayor of Gilboa, Danny Atar, every day goes into the Palestinian Authority to work with the mayor of Jenin to improve the lives of the Palestinian Arabs living there.

Ha'Emek Medical Center in Afula also employs Arab and Jewish doctors, working together. During the worst of the Arab terror offensive launched after Yasser Arafat rejected peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian Arab state, He'Emek equally treated both the terrorists and their Israeli victims, sometimes putting terrorist and victim in the same hospital room.

I also visited Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, which of course also has an integrated staff and serves everyone without regard to nationality or religion. I saw the reinforced checkpoint outside the bomb-proof, concrete-reinforced emergency rooms, where even Magen David Adom ambulances are stopped and searched before their patients are allowed to pass. (Of course, I was also checked before entering the hospital.)

I saw the special "VIP" emergency room, used for patients who require bodyguards, the emergency room to which Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was taken when he suffered a stroke. Amazingly, when Arab terrorists survive their own terror attacks and can be saved with medical treatment, they are taken to the same emergency room and given the same level of care as the Israeli prime minister!

Clearly, the contrast between Israel and its neighbors could not be greater, leading Alan Dershowitz to propose that a "Middle East Apartheid Education Week" be held at universities around the world. It's a proposal one would expect to be wholeheartedly endorsed by true human rights advocates.

Presently, impressionable students are subjected to something quite different, a two week long festival of hate-filled anti-Israel propaganda called "Israeli Apartheid Week."

There is one valuable lesson true students can take from Israeli Apartheid Week: As with the false accusations of Israeli apartheid, one should always react to accusations made against Israel with a healthy degree of skepticism. Most of the time, not only are they false, but those same accusations would be justified if they were made against Israel's enemies.


Alan H. Stein, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Mathematics of the University of Connecticut, president of PRIMER-Connecticut, a media-monitoring organization whose acronym stands for "Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting," and is on the board of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater New Haven. He may be reached by email at alan.stein@primerct.org.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Peace with Truth as its Base

By GS Don Morris, Ph.D., Cal Poly-Pomona Professor Emeritus, Professor Associate at Chapman University and Board Member of PRIMER

Originally published in SPME (Scholars for Peace in the Middle East) Faculty Voices, April 17, 2010.

On campuses across the United States, Israel is being accused of human rights violations. The accusations are so many and so detailed that even relatively well informed pro-Israel students are often at a loss to refute them. The damage is especially great when the charges come from Jews, such as the South African Richard Goldstone, or from actual Israelis. And when official spokespersons for Israel come to campus and attempt to set the record straight for a non-specialist audience, they are often heckled and shouted down before they can present the relevant history and geopolitical facts.

Jonathan Ben-Artzi, a nephew of Netanyahu, is one of a number of Israelis who have won notoriety in recent years for denouncing Israel. In an article in the Christian Science Monitor on April 1, he compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa, and made other charges as well. These charges, although widely publicized, are false.

I am not a Jew, but many years ago I decided to make my home in Israel. Non-Jews of all ethnicities may apply to reside under the umbrella of Israeli authority, but like most other countries, Israel has rules and procedures regarding resident status and citizenship. I applied and now hold "permanent residency," which entitles me to all the rights and privileges of citizenship except the ability to vote in the National election, the equivalent of a US "green card."

Granted, in the world's only Jewish state, Jews have special status. In 1950, Israel passed a Law of Return enabling Jews from around the world to immigrate. The Law was amended in 1970: "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh [Jewish immigrant, literally ascender] under the Nationality Law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew."[1] Over the years, the Knesset [Israeli parliament] has discussed and argued and addressed expanding specific policies. Today, Israel has 5.7 million Jewish citizens, as well as 1.5 million Arab (Muslim, Christian, Druze, etc.) citizens and 0.3 million citizens of other background.

Contrary to what many academics and others in the USA claim, the Arab citizens of Israel may and do vote and serve as Knesset members, government officials and even Supreme Court Justices. Jews, Arabs and others have and use free access to the beaches of Netanya, Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Eilat. We sit in cafes together, work together, shop in malls and open-air markets, and wait together in our post office lines! Benjamin Pogrund, who moved to Israel after a career as an anti-apartheid journalist in South Africa, has addressed the use of the word apartheid as "an epithet of abuse" for Israel. "If true," he wrote, "it would be a grave charge, justifying international condemnation and sanctions. But it isn't true. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is aware of that."[2]

One of my heroes, Martin Luther King Jr. devoted his entire life to fighting oppression. He knew a little something about apartheid and where it was authentically being employed. A few weeks before his tragic death Dr. King said, "I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy."[3]

The lie about Israel's denial of water rights to Palestinians is typical of the kind of" beating your wife accusation" that is commonly made against Israel. Here are the facts: Israel obtains 50% of its water from the Sea of Galilee and the Coastal Aquifer, both of which lie inside Israel's pre-1967 borders. Another 30% comes from the Western and Northeastern Aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer system. These two aquifers straddle the so-called "Green Line" boundary of the West Bank, but most of their water lies under pre-1967 Israel and is easily accessible only in Israel. In the 1950s, Israel used 95% of the Western aquifer's water, and 82% of the Northern aquifer's water. Today, Israel uses only 83% and 80% respectively; the Palestinian share of these aquifers has actually increased. Moreover, "every year over 40 MCM (million cubic meters) of water from sources within Israel is piped over the Green Line for Palestinian use in the West Bank. Ramallah, for example, receives over 5 MCM. And despite the virtural declaration of war against Israel by the Hamas rulers of Gaza, Israel still sends to Gaza another 4 MCM of Israeli water annually."[4]

A very popular accusation that is once again appearing monthly on USA campuses is one that most students can relate to-use of roads. This of course resonates will most of us-what better life event to complain about than the roads we travel upon. The accusation is that Israel segregates its roads and does not permit Palestinians to drive on them. In November 2009, stories claimed that Israel's Route 505 was a Jews-only road, a settler road. Palestinian sources, when contacted, confirmed the false report.[5] In fact, no roads in the West Bank or Gaza are open only to settler traffic. However, since the violent Palestinian uprising against Israel, in which scores of Israelis have been shot on West Bank roads, use of certain roads has been prohibited to private Palestinian vehicles. The Palestinian leadership signed the Oslo Accords, which provide for Israeli jurisdiction in areas in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria and enable Israel to stop traffic during emergencies - times of shootings, bombings and the like - for public protection, just as other governments do.

Israel left Gaza in 2005. However, another false accusation is that Israel has created the "largest open air prison." This is right out of the "playbook" of Israel's enemies and yet we see "academics" perpetuating the lie. A quick glance at a map will show that Gaza borders on Egypt--a Muslim-Arab state. Ask the accusers about the traffic flow, both above and below ground, between Egypt and Gaza. Or ask about the trucks carrying goods and materials that enter Gaza regularly via Israel. Or about the number of patients who travel from Gaza to Israel for free medical care. Or about how Israel provides gas and water to Gaza, even though the Gazans are our sworn enemies, who fire rockets onto Israel's civilian population and attempt to kill its people on a weekly basis? Did you know they plant bombs to kill Israelis?

Meanwhile, thousands of West Bank Palestinians have permits to enter Israel (for work, study and other purposes), and east Jerusalem residents (other than Jews, who have access only to the Wailing Wall) have free access to the Temple Mount. During periods of heightened violence, access is usually limited to men over the age of 45 or 50 and women of all ages. One such restricted period fell earlier this month, as Hamas called a "day of rage," inciting violence on the Temple Mount and beyond. The fact that intermittent closures and restrictions are the exception, as opposed to the rule, is apparent from the media reports, which note the beginning or the end of a more restrictive period."[6]

As is often reported, the United States provides nearly $3 billion in military aid to Israel. That is not just a handout. By law, 70% of these dollars must be spent on American made/built military material, munitions, weapons, and vehicles. Thus those dollars return to the US economy, keeping thousands of Americans employed and able to pay taxes. Israel's high tech industry is the envy of the world and attracts US investors, again sending dollars back into the US economy.

Finally, it is true that certain governments near the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria do not offer citizenship to Palestinian Arabs. Those countries include Jordan and Lebanon. Reporting accurately and honestly the facts enables individuals to arrive at informed conclusions-people with integrity assume this responsibility.

GS Don Morris is a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

Notes

[1] Law of Return http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950

[2] Apartheid Claim. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0317/Israeli-Apartheid-Week-a-ritual-of-discrimination-and-incitement-against-Israel

[3] ibid.

[4] Water Rights. Alex Safian, PhD, October 29,2009. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=12&x_article=1756

[5] Road Only Myth. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=1768

[6] Palestinian entry into Israel http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=1821

[7] List_of_Checkpoint.xls www.btselem.org

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Talking to a Wall: Correspondence with Britain's Advertising Standards Authority

This is the form response I got from my complaint to Britain's ASA about it's absurd banning of an ad from the Israeli Government Tourist Office, followed by a reply I then sent the ASA, to which they responded with exactly the same form letter.

We are currently experiencing a high volume of enquiries which may affect our response time. We apologise for any inconvenience that this might cause.

ASA Adjudication on Israeli Government Tourist Office

The ASA has received lots of feedback about its decision to uphold a complaint against the Israeli Government Tourist Office. Please note that we cannot respond to everyone who writes to us about this ruling. We have outlined the reasons for our decision in our adjudication and we have the following further statement:

We do appreciate that some people strongly disagree with our decision.

Our ruling does not prevent the Israeli Government Tourist Office from depicting the Western Wall or other parts of Jerusalem in future advertisements. The ruling solely seeks to ensure that future ads do not imply that places in the Occupied Territories are part of the State of Israel.

The ASA is duty bound to respond to concerns raised about advertisements that appear in the UK. Often we have to make decisions about subject matters in advertisements that polarise opinion and where strength of feeling and views are particularly pronounced. We realise our decision will disappoint some people.

If the advertiser disagrees with our ruling then they can seek an independent review. Although it will disappoint you I am afraid we will not, however, be reconsidering our ruling.

Finally we are unable to enter into discussions about hypothetical advertisements for other tourist destinations, i.e. the UK. If you have seen an advertisement that you believe is problematic then please fill out our online complaints form.

Other enquiries

Our website does contain a large amount of general information about the work of the ASA as well as a database of adjudications for the past five years.

Useful direct links:

How to complain

FAQs

Adjudications

Please bear with us during this exceptionally busy period.

Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Tel 020 7492 2222 enquiries@asa.org.uk

________________________________________________________________________
The Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, Registered Number 0733214
The Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) Ltd, Registered Number 5130991
The Committee of Advertising Practice, an unincorporated association
The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice Ltd, Registered Number 5126412

Registered Office: Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6QT
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this electronic correspondence and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee please delete this message and notify the sender; you should not copy or distribute this message or disclose its contents to anyone.

Reply to ASA:

Thank you for your response.

I have three questions:

1. What portion of the ad implies the Western Wall is in Israel?

2. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan illegally occupied portions of Jerusalem, after rejecting the United Nations Partition Resolution calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem. During this period, did you ban all ads falsely implying that the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and other portions of the Old City were part of Jordan?

3. Since the Western Wall is in Israel, what's wrong with so implying?

Neighbors of Israel still resist peace

This op-ed by Alan Stein was published in The New Haven Register on April 20, 2010.

On the Jewish calendar, today is the sixth of Iyar, when Israelis celebrate Israel Independence Day, commemorating the re-establishment of the Jewish state after two millenniums. It's an appropriate time to consider its achievements while surrounded by repressive regimes.

Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz places Saudi Arabia first among those regimes. For starters, it practices apartheid in gender, sexual orientation and religion.

It prohibits women from working alongside men or driving cars. It imprisons and executes gays and lesbians. It prohibits open religious observance to all but Muslims. Even during the first Gulf War, when America was saving the Saudis from Saddam Hussein, U.S. soldiers were prohibited from openly praying. Saudi Arabia doesn't permit Jews to live there.

The moderates among Palestinian Arabs - led by Fatah and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas - insist that their future state be cleansed of any Jewish presence. They've made it a crime to sell land to a Jew, punishable by execution.

The most pro-Western of the Arab countries, Jordan, bars Jews from citizenship or owning property, although Jordan encompasses nearly 80 percent of the territory designated for the Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration.

Among these backward-looking, repressive regimes sits Israel, a liberal, Western-oriented democracy that shares most of America's core values.

In Israel, Jews, Muslims, Christians and Arabs and dozens of other national and religious groups live as citizens with equal legal rights. A Druze member of the Knesset, Majallie Whbee, served as Israel's president for a few days three years ago while Israel's acting president was visiting America.

Members of all these groups own homes and use the same parks, beaches, stores and government services. One Israeli recently described it as a stew.

I just returned from two months as a volunteer there and experienced the blending of different ethnic ingredients.

I volunteered peeling potatoes and dicing carrots alongside Arabs and Muslims in a soup kitchen. I spent time volunteering at Laniado Hospital, founded by an ultra-Orthodox rabbi. Its doctors, nurses and patients coming from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, and all are treated with respect.

I visited Connecticut's Partnership 2000 twin, Afula and Gilboa, where Connecticut's Jewish federations have funded programs for Arab-Jewish coexistence. The mayor of Gilboa, Danny Atar, every day goes into the Palestinian Authority to work with the mayor of Jenin to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs.

At Ha'Emek Medical Center in Afula, Arab and Jewish doctors work together, also. During the worst of the Arab terrorism launched after Yasser Arafat rejected peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian Arab state, He'Emek equally treated both terrorists and Israeli victims, sometimes putting terrorist and victim in the same room.

I visited Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, which also has an integrated staff and serves everyone. I saw the reinforced checkpoint outside the bomb-proof, concrete-reinforced emergency rooms, where even Magen David Adom ambulances are searched before they are allowed to pass.

I saw the special VIP emergency room for patients who require bodyguards, to which Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was taken when he suffered a stroke. When Arab terrorists survive their attacks and can be saved with medical treatment, they are taken to the same emergency room and given the same level of care as Sharon.

This is not to say Israel is perfect. It shares some of America's less admirable traits, such as the resentment of immigrants. I observed that in Arad, where 5 percent of the population consists of refugees from Sudan. Yet, Israel is also the only country in the region willing to offer some refuge to those fleeing Sudan, although the refugees share their Muslim religion with the Arab states.

On the 62d anniversary of its re-establishment, Israel still faces misguided and malicious attempts to delegitimize and destroy it, but dreams of peace, to which its neighbors are not reconciled.

Alan H. Stein is Connecticut president of Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting. He is on the board of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater New Haven.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Advice to President Obama: Listen to Candidate Obama

(AP) — An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included an urgent request from the President that the traditional closing refrain “next year in Jerusalem” be deleted during the upcoming Passover holiday, calling the ancient passage provocative and unhelpful for the future of peace talks. Calling it “an easy fix,” Obama strongly urged the Jewish People to replace it with “next year in peace” or “next year in Tel Aviv,” leaving the exact wording to final status talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu is said to have balked at the request, indicating that the refrain dates back well before the UN Partition of 1947 and well before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, for that matter. The Prime Minister reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by offering to remove it from the conclusion of the lesser-known Yom Kippur service, and suggesting the phrase was defunct anyway since Jews have controlled all of Jerusalem since 1967. However, a visibly irritated President Obama flatly rejected the compromise, adding it was another indication the “stiff-necked” Prime Minister did not appear “serious about peace.”

Shortly after the meeting, both sides issued a terse statement saying that no agreement had been reached on the matter.

Thus reads a satire being passed around Internet.

That such a satire would even be distributed is a sad commentary on how much distrust President Obama has generated with his shabby treatment of Israel, our only real friend and the only true democracy in the Middle East.

Even more telling is that many people, including a very astute college professor I know, at first thought it was authentic!

In 2008, Candidate Barack Obama insisted "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."

In 2010, President Barack Obama is not only insisting that Israel negotiate about dividing its capital - even while the Palestinian Arabs refuse to negotiate but get a free pass - but insists that portions of Jerusalem be off-limit to Jews.

As a senator in 1995, our current vice president co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 which, among other provisions, stated it is the policy of the United States that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city" and "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel."

Perhaps Obama's complete reversal and his actions in conflict with officially legislated American policy could be justified if they had a chance of promoting peace, but the reality is otherwise.

A few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted: "The status quo is unsustainable for all sides."

The status quo consists of the United States continually pressuring Israel to make concessions, even as the Palestinian Arabs continue to reject peace regardless of the incentives.

With his newly-acquired phobia of any construction of homes for Jews in the disputed territories, even while there is massive construction of homes for Arabs in the same disputed territories, President Obama engineered a lost year. 2010 was the first year since the start of the failed Oslo Process during which there were no negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

With his temper tantrum over the possible future building of a handful of homes in the predominantly Jewish, northwest Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, President Obama has torpedoed even the indirect talks Abu Mazen had seemingly condescended to.

For many years, we have rewarded the Palestinian Arabs for their obstruction, rejectionism and even for their terrorism while penalizing Israel for its eagerness to make peace. We have not been an honest broker.

It's time to heed the implications of the words of Secretary of State Clinton and change course.

To promote peace, we need to start showing the Palestinian Arabs there will be a price to pay if they keep obstructing efforts to bring about peace.

Perhaps the most effective way to get that message across would be to start encouraging Israeli construction in the disputed territories and to make it clear that the longer the Palestinian Arabs put off coming to terms with the existence of Israel and refusing to make peace, the less territory they'll eventually get.

An appropriate start would be the implementation of the key provision of the legislation Vice President Biden co-sponsored in 1995 and move our Israeli embassy to the city it belongs, the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.

That would be a change we could believe in.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Abusing the Power of the Press at The Hartford Courant

This op-ed was published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger April 16, 2010.

Abusing the Power of the Press
Hartford Courant Publishes Lies, Quashes Criticism

By Alan Stein

There apparently is life-after-death. Years after even The Hartford Courant became embarrassed by the fanaticism of one columnist, Amy Pagnozzi has apparently been resurrected as Bessy Reyna.

Like Pagnozzi, Bessy Reyna specializes in writing anti-Israel diatribes that are venomous, misleading and filled with obvious factual errors.

The Courant not only keeps publishing Reyna's screeds and refuses to issue corrections, but adamantly refuses to even publish letters pointing out their factual errors.

At a meeting PRIMER held with Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden and Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach on November 11, 2008, Lumsden tacitly conceded Reyna's columns crossed a line leaving us with the impression that Reyna would be sticking to local issues about which she had some knowledge.

Yet The Courant published another one of Reyna's anti-Israel screeds on March 21, although Lumsden defended it as having a hometown angle.

The hometown angle consisted of unfair criticism of United States Congressman Joseph Courtney and Goodspeed Opera House Executive Director Michael Price. Their crime was planning to travel to Israel to promote business for Connecticut companies, but that was incidental to what seems to be Reyna's true purpose, defaming Israel.

Even without its factual errors, Reyna's March 21 column contained errors of omission and distortions which should have prevented its publication in any responsible newspaper.

For example, she refers to the "Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron" and the "Mosque of Biai ibn Rabah" in Bethlehem without any reference to their more neutral and familiar names, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb, thus deliberately hiding their Jewish connection predating Islam by millennia.

PRIMER didn't even ask for corrections of these errors of omission, restricting its request for corrections to errors of commission, reminding The Courant about the portion of Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists that specifies "Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other" and "Journalists should: ... Admit mistakes and correct them promptly" and the portion of the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors which specifies "Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently."

Among Reyna's errors of commission:

- Reyna falsely referred to plans for additional housing in the existing Jewish community of Ramat Shlomo as "a new settlement."

- Reyna falsely stated the Israeli government's inclusion of The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb in a list of Jewish heritage sites would limit access for Muslims.

- Reyna falsely referred to The Tomb of the Patriarchs as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century."

- Reyna falsely referred to the demonstration held after the publication of the list of Jewish heritage sites as "peaceful." (I happened to be in Jerusalem when those "peaceful" demonstrators were throwing stones down at Jews trying to worship at the Western Wall and avoided walking to The Wall one Shabbat to keep my head intact.)

- Reyna falsely referred to Ramat Shlomo as being in "East Jerusalem." (Ramat Shlomo isn't even in eastern Jerusalem; it clearly is in northern Jerusalem, if you can even find it on a map, since it's north of the areas shown on most maps. According to Pach, the (incorrect) use of the term "East Jerusalem" by many other people makes it okay for The Courant.)

The editors of The Courant denied any of these were errors.

They also refused to publish a letter the president of PRIMER submitted. Their stated grounds: the letter falsely asserted Reyna's op-ed contained errors. (The letter may be viewed on PRIMER's web site.)

The Hartford Courant isn't alone in its reluctance to issue corrections to factual errors but, as my mother used to tell me, just because everyone else does it doesn't make it right.

The Courant's misrepresentations and quashing of criticism are unethical and abuses of journalistic responsibility on the part of what's considered Connecticut's flagship newspaper.

Alan Stein, Ph.D., is president of PRIMER-Connecticut, the statewide, media monitoring organization composed of volunteers devoted to Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting. He may be reached by email at alan.stein@primerct.org.

The texts of the correspondence between PRIMER and The Hartford Courant are available both on the PRIMER website at www.primerct.org and the PRIMER blog at primerct.blogspot.com.

Obama's Anti-Israel Hostility

This letter was published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger April 16, 2010.

Mayor Ed Koch is right ("All the King's Horses and All the King's Men" by Ed Koch, April 2, 2010). Barack Hussein Obama's anti-Israel hostility is clear. First, Obama fails to take effective action against Iran's nuclear threat, instead appeasing Iran and pressuring Israel not to attack that threat. He thus places Israel in mortal peril.

Second, he seized on an Israeli "gaffe" to condemn publicly and humiliate Israel for simply building in her eastern, historic and Jewish part of her capital, while failing to condemn the Palestinian Arab Authority for honoring an Arab terrorist who had killed at least 37 persons, including an American and 13 children. At the same time Obama ignored Israel's prior sacrifices for peace, which cost her 1000 killed, over 4000 wounded and maimed, and unremitting rocket attacks.

Third, he humiliated Israel's leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the White House, by barring any public ceremony, instead issuing ultimatums such as ending building in eastern Jerusalem and withdrawing Israeli forces to positions held in September, 2000, prior to the second Arab terror onslaught - without any regard to Israel's legitimate security interests. As Washington Post correspondent Jackson Diehl stated, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship...."

As a result, Obama has stalled Israel-Arab negotiations because Palestinian Arabs believe they need not make concessions because "Obama will force them all from Israel."

As a Jerusalem Post commentator has stated, "American Jews face a president who radiates hostility towards Israel. Will they have the courage to stand up."

Daniel R. Schaefer
Hartford

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

What the US Should and Shouldn't Do in the Middle East

In the inaugural issue of the Jewish Review of Books, Shlomo Avineri wrote an interesting review, entitled "What the US Can and Can't Do in the Middle East," of the recent book "Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky.

Not yet having read the book itself, I can't yet tell where the authors' ideas end and the reviewer's positions begin, but it's clear the book makes an important contribution towards debunking the fantasies of the mis-named "realists" that all would be well in the Middle East if America would just force Israel to give in to all Arab demands and self-destruct.

On the other hand, too much credit is given to America for some past actions which, contrary to the assertions in the review, were harmful rather than helpful.

Example 1: The United States is given credit for planting the seeds for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty by forcing Israel to stop fighting in 1973 before completely defeating Egypt.

Rather than helping, this was just one more in a serious of moves which have taught the Arabs we (America) will make sure they won't have to pay much of a price for aggression, that we'll always save them.

Similarly, credit is given to Jimmy Carter for helping to seal the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, when it likely would have been signed earlier and resulted in a less-cold peace had Carter not kept pressuring Sadat to stick to all his demands while pressuring Begin to make concession after concession.

Similarly, credit is given to President Clinton for bringing Rabin and Arafat to Washington for the famous handshake, but it was the pressure Clinton exerted for the premature ceremony which virtually ensured the abject failure that Oslo became. Most critically, he let Arafat weasel out of the commitment to amend the PLO Charter prior to the ceremony, setting the stage for Arafat weaseling out of virtually every commitment he made and doing so without any real penalty from us.

In the review, Bush I is also given credit for preventing Israel from defending itself from the Scuds launched by Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.

This was both morally indefensible and a strategic blunder harming both America and Israel. We gave in to blackmail by the very people we were defending, demonstrating a weakness, despite our military strength, that decreased respect for America.

It also began the counterproductive era of Israeli restraint, which continues to this day, encouraging Arab terrorism as well as intransigence. This was another important factor in the failure of Oslo and already has cost thousands of lives, both Israeli and Arab.

In another one of the many ironies in the Middle East, many statements made are often true, but in a way different from that intended. Recently, David Axelrod said that part of friendship involves stating yourself bluntly. Unfortunately, that message was directed at Israel, when it is to the Arabs that America needs to speak bluntly and finally send the message that their aggression, rejectionism and intransigence will no longer be accommodated with more and more pressure for more and more Israeli concessions.

That is a necessary ingredient in truly abandoning America's myths and illusions and "finding a new direction for America in the Middle East."

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Hartford Courant Refuses to Correct Errors and Even Refuses to Publish Letter About Them

We have previously blogged about an error-filled commentary, Amid Repression, Provocations Of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual by Bessy Reyna published March 21 in The Hartford Courant: Crossing the Line: Journalistic Irresponsibility at The Hartford Courant and Hartford Courant Again Publishes and Refuses to Correct Blatant Errors.

The latter included an email from The Courant's Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach concluding "We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna's piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises," albeit with the qualification that it had to keep within 200 words even though a concise listing of just some of Reyna's factual errors would take far more than 200 words.

I took Mr. Pach up on his "invitation," even giving The Courant a choice of two different letters, but he apparently wasn't very sincere: The Courant has made it clear it will not publish letters about the blatant factual errors in Reyna's screed unless they pretend facts are merely opinions.

In a conference call with no fewer than three Courant Editors (Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden, Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach and Letters Editor Lewis Bresee), The Courant's editors used Orwellian logic to insist there were no errors in Reyna's piece and they would not publish a letter that stated there were.

One can almost understand The Courant's editors can hear incorrect terminology, such as "East Jerusalem," so many times they start to believe it's not incorrect. As PRIMER quotes Joseph Goebbels, "A huge lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth.

However, The Courant editors went beyond the absurd in defending Reyna's falsely describing the planned addition of homes within the existing neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo as being a "new settlement." He even referred to Ramat Shlomo itself as a "new settlement," although Ramat Shlomo was built back in 1996 and, with about 20,000 residents, hardly conjures up images of a "settlement."

Of course, The Courant editors are entitled to their own biases and misconceptions. What is of concern to those who believe newspapers serve a vital role in a democracy is the same editors who repeatedly publish hateful, error-filled articles by Bessy Reyna not only refuse to publish their own corrections but refuse to publish critical letters unless they're rewritten as to lose all meaning.

In this particular case, they even rejected the suggestion of the writer that they include their own Editor's Note expressing their opinion about the content of the letter.

One last note before the texts of the rejected letters: Reyna's columns contained many other factual errors in addition to the those contained in the one phrase discussed in the letter. Some of those were mentioned in an earlier correspondence with The Courant, but given the attitude of the editors it seemed pointless to again point them out over the telephone.

The rejected letters:

Dear Editor:

It's disturbing that the Hartford Courant on March 21 not only published yet another error-filled commentary by Bessy Reyna but has refused to issue corrections for any of those errors, even though such corrections are called for by both the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

It's further disturbing that the Courant refused to allow sufficient space for a letter to adequately explain the errors, restricting such a letter to its standard 200 word limit, woefully insufficient for even a concise listing of all the errors.

Consider one, typically error-filled phrase in Reyna's commentary: "… the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."

There is no place named "East Jerusalem" and the constructions will be in northern, not even eastern, Jerusalem.

It won't be a new "settlement." Israel hasn't even built any new "settlements" since the start of the Oslo Process in 1993.

A more substantial explanation of this phrase and myriad other errors, of fact and omission, misrepresentations and distortions is unfortunately not available through The Courant but may be found at .

Sincerely,

Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut

The following is an alternate if you don't want to publish the greatly preferred letter above.

Dear Editor:

The commentary by Bessy Reyna published by The Hartford Courant on March 21 contained numerous factual errors, errors of omission, distortions and misrepresentations.

Because of The Courant's strict 200 word limit on letters, I only have space to incompletely analyze one phrase, but a more substantial analysis my be viewed on the PRIMER website at .

Reyna misleadingly refers to: " … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."

For one thing, there is no place named "East Jerusalem." The construction won't even be in eastern Jerusalem. It will be in northern Jerusalem, in an area that might reasonably be called northwestern Jerusalem, being directly north of the heart of the area meant when people refer to west Jerusalem.

It's also false to refer to the plans as being for a new "settlement." The plans are simply for additional apartments in the long established neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which already contains about 20,000 residents. Indeed, Israel hasn't built any new "settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo Process, way back in 1993.

It's unfortunate The Courant published such a misleading commentary, filled with so many errors, distortions and misrepresentations.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut

Monday, April 5, 2010

Article Misstated Latest Developments In The Middle East

This letter was published Monday, April 5 in the Waterbury Republican-American. Unfortunately, he title didn't accurately reflect the contents.

It's a sad commentary when the continued reluctance of Israel's Arab neighbors to make peace is considered news ("Arab leaders back peace efforts," March 29).

The Arab League rejected pressure from Syria and Libya to with draw support for indirect talks between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, and to "resume armed resistance." Apparently, the terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza, including the rocket that killed an innocent worker in Israel on March 18, aren't considered "armed resistance."

Those indirect talks, which the supposedly moderate leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Abu Mazen, still refuses, would be a step backward to the pre-Oslo situation when the Palestinian Arabs refused to talk directly to Israel. The article also falsely refers to Arab "opposition to Israeli plans for new Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem."

The Israeli government hasn't built new "settlements" anywhere in the disputed territories or Jerusalem since the start of the failed Oslo Process.

The writer was inaccurately refer ring to plans for additional housing in Ramat Shlomo, an existing Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem that, far from being a "settlement," is an established community larger than any of Waterbury's suburbs, and conceded even by the Palestinian Arab leadership as destined to remain within Israel under any conceivable agreement.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

The writer is president of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting; www.primerct.org).

Sunday, April 4, 2010

To advance peace, Obama should encourage construction

Published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger March 31, 2010.

In the last issue of The Ledger, Harry Schwartz and Miriam Kurland both wrote very similar, very misguided letters, both taken in large measure from the web site of Americans for Peace Now.

There is one sentence in the "AIPAC doesn't speak for me" page on the Peace Now web site at <peacenow.org/entries/ aipac_doesnt_speak_for_me> included verbatim in Kurland's letter, with which I agree. APN says: "We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements."

Unfair as it would be, acceding to the Arab demands that Judea and Samaria join Gaza in being judenrein would be worth the price if it really would bring peace. Unfortunately, the reality is just the opposite.

President Obama's fixation on what are misleadingly maligned as "settlements" has already encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to waste another year. His apparently deliberate crisis-creation over a routine announcement about building ordinary apartments in Ramat Shlomo, inaccurately referred to by Kurland as being in "East Jerusalem" and by Schwartz as being in "Arab East Jerusalem," neither of which exists, led to Abbas reneging even on his agreement to conduct "proximity talks," which themselves would have been a step backwards two decades.

Our current president has accomplished something I had previously thought almost impossible: he has outdone his predecessors in rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for obstructing peace. Now, more than ever, they are learning that promoting violence and rejecting even dialog pays.

A more productive policy would be to encourage construction by Israel in the disputed territories while sending a clear message to the Palestinian Arabs that, rather than being rewarded for rejecting peace, the longer they delay the less territory with which they will ultimately wind up.

Whereas among the Arabs, the major disagreement between the extremists and the so-called "moderates" is whether pretending to be interested in peace is a useful tactic, among Israel and its supporters the major disagreement is over what strategy is most likely to induce the Arabs to finally make peace. Decades of unreciprocated concessions by Israel, as still advocated by APN, have failed disastrously. A more balanced approach is also unlikely to succeed in the near future, but seems a better bet than the failed and counterproductive approach of President Obama and APN.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Hartford Courant Again Publishes and Refuses to Correct Blatant Errors

The Hartford Courant has a history of publishing columns by Bessy Reyna which are not only heavily-biased against Israel (which is permissible in an opinion piece), but which are filled with blatant errors and misrepresentations (which is not permissible even in an opinion piece).

In the past, PRIMER has pointed this out to The Courant, which has always refused to issue corrections despite its ethical obligation to do so. It has also offered to act as a resource so The Courant could find errors before publication, but The Courant has never availed itself of PRIMER's offer.

On March 21, The Hartford Courant published yet another commentary by Bessy Reyna, filled with errors of commission and omission, misrepresentations and distortions, entitled Amid Repression, Provocations of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual.

PRIMER quickly sent a message to the editorial page editor of The Courant, listing some of the blatant factual errors and requesting corrections be issued. Such corrections are mandated both by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

The Courant not only refused to issue any corrections, but also told PRIMER it would not publish a letter longer than 200 words, even though a concise, partial listing of errors, without even giving context, took 225 words.

A letter is being sent to the letters editor of The Hartford Courant. It, of course, addresses only a miniscule portion of the errors and misrepresentations in Reyna's commentary, not to mention the unwillingness of The Courant to issue corrections. The letter is not included here.

The following is the text of the exchange of emails between PRIMER President Alan Stein, Courant Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden and Courant Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach. Portions of some of the messages quoted earlier messages; for the sake of clarity and brevity, those portions are replaced by ellipses (…).

March 21, 2010. From Alan Stein to Carolny Lumsden:


I was disappointed to see yet another Bessy Reyna commentary about Israel published, the second of which I'm aware since our 2008 meeting at which we were told she had been instructed to stop writing on that subject.

Besides her expected extreme bias and sins of omission which go beyond any responsible commentary, Reyna again included several blatant factual errors. On behalf of PRIMER-Connecticut and in line with the responsibility of newspapers when factual errors are published, I request that corrections be issued.

Among the factual errors:

•" … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."

The plans are not for a "new settlement." They are for additions to an existing community. (The Israeli government hasn't approved any "new settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo process.)

There also is no entity by the name of "East Jerusalem," despite the widespread, but incorrect use of that term. Ramat Shlomo is not even in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; it's actually in northwest Jerusalem.

It's also highly questionable to refer to the area as occupied, since it isn't even in the portion of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan but it's in what had been a "no man's land" between the Israeli portion and the portion occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967.

•" … prompted by Israel's decision to name the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron- a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century - and the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in Bethlehem as Jewish heritage sites, thus limiting Muslims' access to their own mosques."

Including these sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites (which they clearly are) in no way limits the access of Muslims. Indeed, the improvements planned will actually increase the accessibility for Muslims. (One might consider the latter assertion as a matter of opinion, but Reyna's statement was asserted as fact and is clearly false.)

It's also false to refer to the first as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century," since it is indisputable that there was no "Palestinian people" at that time.

What Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Ibrahimi Mosque" is the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has had some significance to Muslims, but that is predated by millennia by the holiness to Jews, something Reyna completely omits.

Similarly, what Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" is actually Rachel's Tomb, similarly revered by Jews long before Islam arose.

These omissions may not technically be factual errors, but are certainly misleading distortions which qualify as egregious violations of journalistic responsibility.

•…"The peaceful demonstrations which have resulted as a reaction to the taking of these mosques …"

The demonstrations were far from peaceful. Some of them involved throwing stones at people trying to worship at the Western Wall. (This affected me personally, since I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, was planning to visit the Western Wall and changed those plans primarily because of the violent demonstrations.)

To refer to "the taking of these mosques" is also totally false; nothing has been taken.

•"Known as the Goldstone Report, it concluded that there was strong evidence confirming that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, to Jan. 17, 2009."

This is also false and contradicted by the words of the author of the report. Judge Goldstone himself has stated "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."

One can reasonably question the wisdom of certain Israeli actions, but like Reyna's previously commentaries on the Arab war against the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, this column was venomous, goes far beyond the line of reasonable criticism, contains unacceptable distortions resulting from what can only be inferred to be the deliberate omission of highly relevant facts and contains blatant factual errors.

Again, on behalf of PRIMER, I request The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors and in the future refrain from staining its pages by publishing additional commentaries which so blatantly cross the line separating legitimate criticism from hateful screeds.

March 25. Carolyn Lumsden to Alan Stein:


Dear Mr. Stein: Thank you for your thoughtful email. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I had told Bessy Reyna to stop writing entirely about Israel. I had asked her to write about topics closer to home. Her Sunday op-ed had the kind of hometown angles that do localize an international topic.

Peter Pach researched Bessy's article thoroughly. I understand and appreciate that you disagree with much of it. We strive for a lively exchange of opinion. We've had many letters on both Bessy's op-ed and Mr. Fuchs'. You might want to consider that avenue as well.

As always, we appreciate your writing us.

March 28. Alan Stein to Carolyn Lumsden:


I guess I, along with the others at that meeting, had incorrectly inferred her being told to write on topics closer to home meant she had been told to not write on the Arab-Israeli conflict.


Letters in response, along with other columns, are indeed an appropriate avenue for an exchange of opinion, but that is not what my previous message was about. Indeed, I barely mentioned the opinions with which I disagree.

My previous message was primarily about blatant factual errors, of which I listed at least four. (The actual number depends on how one counts multiple factual errors in the same sentence.)

My interpretation of the "Be Accountable" portion of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, where it says "Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each otther" and "Journalists should: ... Admit mistakes and correct them promptly" as well as the "Truth and Accuracy" portion of the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, where it says "Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently" is that factual errors such as those I pointed out should be officially corrected by the newspaper itself.

I thus repeat the request I made in my earlier message, that "The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors."

I would also recommend that if in the future there are any questions about factual accuracy, knowledgeable persons be consulted. I am certainly willing to assist. I think it is certainly preferable to catch errors prior to publication.



Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to reading appropriate corrections in The Courant.

I will also, in a separate email, submit my own column for your consideration. Although I am sure Ms. Reyna would disagree with my opinions, I'm confident she won't find any factual errors.

April 1. Peter Pach to Alan Stein:


Dear Mr. Stein,

Carolyn Lumsden has passed your e-mails concerning the piece written by Bessy Reyna along to me for review. Of course, I am familiar with your long involvement with the contentious politics in the Middle East and read your concerns about the piece closely.

Although you take issue with her on a number of statements, these appear to be areas that revolve around point of view rather than settled fact and not matters for a correction. The location of the proposed building of 1,600 housing units, for example, is widely reported to be in East Jerusalem, a reference used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, publications in Israel and many others. Some say it is in northern or northeastern Jerusalem. You are the only source I have found that says the proposed building is in northwest Jerusalem. Maps I have consulted show the area to be north and to the east of the city’s midpoint. But, as you know, this debate goes beyond geography.

We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna’s piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises.

April 1. Alan Stein to Peter Pach:




That is incorrect.

There are certainly several additional statements which one might consider revolving around a "point of view," but I specifically mentioned at least four clear factual errors.

1. While one might argue over whether Ramat Shlomo is in northern or northwestern Jerusalem (it is almost directly north of the "Golden Triangle" (bounded by King George, Yafo and Ben Yehuda, considered the center of western Jerusalem), there is no such place as "East Jerusalem." That some others also incorrectly refer to a nonexistent entity does not change that fact.

2. The housing being planned is not a new settlement.

3. Including Jewish heritage sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites doesn't limit the access of Muslims. (If Reyna asserted that Muslims feared that Israel might, at some point in the future, restrict their access that would be an opinion; what she stated was stated as fact and is simply false.)

4. The Tomb of the Patriarchs could not possibly have been "a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century" since there were no Palestinians (in the sense obviously meant) until relatively recently. (I will concede one could argue that by the seventh century the Romans had renamed the area and the fact that there were then Jews worshipping there - as they and their forefathers had for millenia - made it a "Palestinian place of worship" in a geographic sense. If so, that's clearly not the impression Reyna sought to create and thus itself merits an clarification by The Courant.)

I again request that The Courant observe the journalistic standards I previously cited and issue corrections of these clear, factual errors.

If you decline, then I request you at least give me sufficient space to adequately respond in a letter, recognizing even the very brief listing of the errors given above took about 225 words, already above your usual limit of 200 words for letters, without even including the context or any reference to the myriad misrepresentations and errors of omission, such as failing to even mention the generally recognized names for the sites and the way their importance to Jews predates Islam by millenia.

April 2. Peter Pach to Alan Stein:


Dear Mr. Stein,

You are welcome to write a letter within the usual word limit in regard to Bessy Reyna’s column. We have already printed three letters concerning the column including one that challenged her view of the religious shrines that have been listed as Jewish heritage sites. You might want to emphasize other points not mentioned in that letter but that would be up to you.

PRIMER Comments on Reyna Commentary


The following are brief comments produced by PRIMER after Reyna's commentary was published.

Reyna falsely refers to Israel's building plans as being for a "new settlement." The apartments being planned are for an existing Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, Ramat Shlomo, which already has about 20,000 people living in it.

Reyna also refers to it as being in "occupied East Jerusalem." Ramat Shlomo is actually in northwest Jerusalem, as is much of what's so often referred to as "East Jerusalem." It also is not in an area that had been previously occupied by Jordan, being in what had been a no-man's land between Israel and territory occupied by Jordan.

Reyna falsely refers to the "Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron" as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century. There were no "Palestinians" in the seventh century, as the Palestinian identity has only recently been forged as a reaction to the reestablishment of Israel. It has been a place of worship for Muslims, but Reyna omits the fact that the Machpelah Cave, the burial place of the Jewish patriarchs, was holy to the Jews millenia before the onset of Islam and doesn't even refer to its Jewish name.

Her reference to Rachel's Tomb, which she refers to as the "Mosque of Biai ibn Rabah," is similarly misleading.

Meanwhile, her assertion that Israel's naming them Jewish heritage sites would limit Muslis' access is simply false. (As is typical, this false anti-Israel accusation reflects the reality of what the Arabs are trying to do to the Jews.)

One might ask whether Reyna denies that the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are holy to the Jewish people?