The Palestinian propaganda machine in the City Press is at full throttle, peddling lies and distorting reality. Out of the comment pages at City Press comes this lying and hateful tribute to Yasser Arafat - Arafat pointed a way to the promised land.
Note: The City Press have an Ombudsman system, which in their words, deals with issues ranging from "factual errors through to offensive reporting. City Press welcomes all calls/enquiries and is committed to resolving issues as quickly and as efficiently as possible". The City Press' Ombudsman's e-mail address is [email protected]
Throughout the article, Israel is villified for having reported that Yasser Arafat had died when in fact he had not. Israel TV reported that Arafat was brain dead, which according to this AFP story, was claimed by a French medical official. City Press don't care about this, the slant just provides them with an opportunity to paint Israel as an inhumane thug. Arafat's wife, Suha, has accused Arafat's own Palestinian leadership of trying to " bury" her husband while he is still alive. Why have the City Press ignored this accusation?
Arafat will never win a most- liked person contest in Israel, but that does not justify the absence of a sense of humanity as he lay on his deathbed. That broadcast represented the most vile treatment of one human being by another and ironically reminds us all what war in the Mideast has done to the humanity of people there.
The opinion piece, of course, gets worse, and the expected and tedious attack on rabid Zionists makes it customary appearance. Having already left the plane of sanity, City Press surge on, even praising Arafat for having marshalled the UN to pass a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
Arafat embodies the world's view of Palestine. Faced with a string of rabid Zionist regimes that were never satisfied with just oppressing the Palestinians but hounded them out of their country and even from neighbouring states, yet Arafat remained resolute. He mobilised world opinion, except for the United States, and got the United Nations General Assembly to pass a resolution equating Zionism to racism. He marshalled freedom fighters willing to take the fight to the Israelis, who were formidable in their own right, but even more so when backed by the US.
Arafat hardly deserved much praise for this resolution. The resolution was sponsored by the following not so fantastic models of morality: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic,Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.
The resolution was passed in 1975, primarily as part of the Soviet-Arab cold war anti-Israel campaign. Almost all former non Arab supporters of the resolution have since apologised and changed their positions. The City Press joins very sad company in openly praising this embarrassing event. When the UN voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab and Muslim states, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam were opposed, so it's strange that a well read newspaper in South Africa takes such a radial stance.
Next, the editorial mendaciously praises Arafat as a man who worked to bring peace to the region. Arafat spoke out of two mouths. In the 1990's he fooled everyone into believing that he was a true partner for peace. But in 1996, speaking to an Arab audience in Stockholm, Arafat said "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem. "
Even Dennis Ross, the US lead negotiator between the Arabs and the Israelis now rejects Arafat as a man of peace. "Every agreement he made was limited and contained nothing he regarded as irrevocable. He was not, in his eyes, required to surrender any claims. Worse, notwithstanding his commitment to renounce violence, he has never relinquished the terror card. Moreover, he is always quick to exaggerate his achievements, even while maintaining an ongoing sense of grievance."
"During the Oslo peace process, he never prepared his public for compromise. Instead, he led the Palestinians to believe the peace process would produce everything they ever wanted—and he implicitly suggested a return to armed struggle if negotiations fell short of those unattainable goals. Even in good times, Arafat spoke to Palestinian groups about how the struggle, the jihad, would lead them to Jerusalem. Too often his partners in the peace process dismissed this behavior as Arafat being caught up in rhetorical flourishes in front of his “party” faithful. I myself pressed him when his language went too far or provoked an angry Israeli response, but his stock answer was that he was just talking about the importance of struggling for rights through the negotiation process." (See excerpts from Ross' book that typifies this here and here)
Next, Arafat is described as an unfortunate victim, caught in the middle of a battle between "militant Zionist settlers and their very own creation, the Hamas suicide bombers".
Militant Zionist settlers continued to build on occupied lands and, as this went on, Arafat, caught in the middle, tried to navigate but could not win. The violence spread and suicide bombings spread, while Israeli incursions into the West Bank and Gaza became a daily occurrence.
Finally, after stumbling through a dishonest and loathsome tribute to the world's favourite terrorist, the City Press end with another fashionable lie.
For four decades Arafat has been the Palestinians' leader, Jerusalem their capital. He was born there, he wants to be buried there, and indeed he should. If US president George W Bush wants the world to believe he has changed, the first thing he should do is to chastise Sharon for such an attitude and ensure that, after Arafat's death, he is buried where his family wants him to rest, in the land of his birth.
Actually, Arafat is not even a native Palestinian, although his parents were. Arafat has claimed to have been born in Jerusalem and Gaza! Sadly for the City Press, he was born and schooled in Cairo. Arafat didn't even take part in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Nakba, which Palestinians regard as their formative national experience. Read the whole article if you can stomach it.
Of course, there is no mention of Arafat's career as a terrorist.
City Press can be contacted via email at [email protected].
The rest of their contact details can be found here.
This is outrageous. How can they get away with this!
Posted by: Anti-UN | November 08, 2004 at 23:45
Amazing and disgusting. Doesn't this "City Press" have even a shred of commitment to truth?
Posted by: Alvin | November 09, 2004 at 18:54
South Africa seems to be one big trash dumpster full of Nazis, moving backwards as fast as they can.
Posted by: Friedman | November 09, 2004 at 19:49
No, we not full of Nazis. Its just that the PLO supported the ANC are comrades. And so many ignorant people here sympathise with the Pali cause. This is not Nazi style hatred at all. Its driven by naivety and ignorance.
Jews in South Africa suffer far fewer anti-Semitic icidents than in Australia, NZ, USA, Uk, Europe.
But our press are radically supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Alvin...they have no shred of commitment at all.
Posted by: Steve | November 10, 2004 at 09:06
The City press say that Israel's reporting of Yasser being belly up is vile.
Well, what about their speaking about where he will be buried. Have they no respect for Arafat? Even Nabil Shath yesterday said that it is DISRESPECTFUL TO SPEAK of where he will buried while he is still alive.
I will send this to City Press.
Posted by: Anti-UN | November 10, 2004 at 09:09
Good day Sirs,
I wish to express my absolute dismay at the poorest piece of journalism that I have ever had the misfortune to read. I refer to your scurrilous attack on Israel in your Yasser Arafat article dated November 7. Shame on you.
How can you consider yourselves honest when you criticise Israel’s reporting of Arafat being dead by saying
"Arafat will never win a most- liked person contest in Israel, but that does not justify the absence of a sense of humanity as he lay on his deathbed. That broadcast represented the most vile treatment of one human being by another and ironically reminds us all what war in the Mideast has done to the humanity of people there."
And then, in the same breath, you have the cheek to speak about Arafats place of burial even before he is dead? Nabil Shath on Sky news yesterday criticised the questions about his place of burial because it is (and this may be news to you) DISRESPECTFUL to speak of Arafat’s burial openly in the press while he is still alive. You show even more vile treatment of one human being by another!
You should consider some facts.
Israel was not the only entity that reported that Arafat was dead. An AFP story reported via a French medical official that he was dead, before Israel even reported it. The link is here. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041105/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_arafat_france_041105000000
Also, it is candalous of you to state your misguided opinion of Arafat being born in Jerusalem as fact. Arafat has actually claimed before that he was born in Gaza (though he has also claimed to be born in Jerusalem). He was however, born in Cairo, which is in Egypt.
How dare you.
In a country which professes such tolerance and understanding it is disturbing to see such a popular newspaper act like George Bush and impose their bigoted and racist (see your praise for the whole Zionism = racism resolution) opinion on the public.
From a weblog which has criticized you:
Arafat hardly deserved much praise for this resolution. The resolution was sponsored by the following not so fantastic models of morality: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic,Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.
The resolution was passed in 1975, primarily as part of the Soviet-Arab cold war anti-Israel campaign. Almost all former non Arab supporters of the resolution have since apologised and changed their positions. The City Press joins very sad company in openly praising this embarrassing event. When the UN voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab and Muslim states, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam were opposed, so it's strange that a well read newspaper in South Africa takes such a radial stance.
Posted by: Anti-UN | November 10, 2004 at 09:42
That's some good reading.
Posted by: Derikboy | November 11, 2004 at 09:43