Old Canards Die Hard

Condemning themselves to the malaise of mediocrity, this editorial in the Sunday Times only serves to reveal their naked biases.

Opining about the ills of Ariel Sharon, the Sunday Times resorts to an old an tired canard.

His provocative visit to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount in October 2000 undid the work of Rabin and Ehud Barak and triggered the second, and deadlier, Palestinian intifada.

It's difficult to imagine that an Editor of good conscience could really believe in his heart of hearts that one visit by Ariel Sharon to the Holiest site in Judaism could trigger an Intifada and undo "the work of Rabin and Ehud Barak". That work was finally undone in December 2002 when Arafat refused to accept the Clinton Parameters which would have created a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted months after Sharon's visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation." "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president and rejected the American conditions." ("Palestinian Minister says uprising was planned," AP, March2, 2001.)

Sharon did not even enter any mosques and his 34 minute visit to the Temple Mount was conducted during normal hours when the area is open to tourists. Only in the Sunday Time's world of inverted reality is that enough to justify a violent uprising against unarmed civilians.

The Palestinians were aware of the Sharon visit. Dennis Ross in his book "The Missing Peace" tells the account of how the visit was coordinated between Shlomo Ben Ami (Israeli Minister of Internal security) and Jibril Rajoub (Palestinian Head of Preventive Security):

Yet as I entered his [Shlomo Ben Ami - Israeli Minister of Internal Security] he was on the phone to Jibril Rajoub - the head of the Palestinian Preventive Security in the West Bank. He was coordinating with Rajoub, and Rajoub was only asking that Sharon not be allowed to enter the mosques-meaning he might walk around the Haram [Temple Mount] the next day but not do more than that. Much to Sharon's dislike, Shlomo invoked the security provision to prevent Sharon from entering the mosques but not the Haram grounds. Ironically, there was an incident on the 27th, the day before the visit. But this involved the killing of an Israeli soldier in an ambush in Gaza, an event the Israelis claim marked the real beginning of the Intifada. On the 28th, when Sharon went to the Haram [Temple Mount], everything was quiet. All hell was to break loose on the 29th. But on the 28th, the last day of our discussions, no one on either delegation acted if this was a potentially catastrophic development. No one even raised it, even though Sharon - given the 7 hour time difference-had already completed his visit to the Haram before we began our last day's discussions. [...] I bid good-bye to the Palestinians at about 4pm. Two hours later Dani Yatom called me and said Israel had hard evidence that the PA were planning massive, violent demonstrations throughout the West Bank the next morning, ostensibly a response to the Sharon visit. Dani was very clear: This would be a disaster.[...] Through their own channels the Israelis had sent messages to Arafat about the planned violence and there had been no response; it was up to us to persuade Arafat to prevent the violence. There was little time to act. I briefed the Secretary of State and then she called Arafat and told him what he must do and what was at stake. Arafat told the secretary he would do all that he could. We now know that Arafat did not lift a finger to stop the demonstrations, which produced the second Intifada. Why not? Some believe that after Camp David he concluded that he could not achieve what he wanted through negotiations and therefore resorted to violence. Certainly that is Ehud Barak's view today. Others believe he planned an escalation to violence all along-or at least after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon - in no small part because, in accordance with the "Palestinian narrative," he needed Palestinian independence to result from struggle.

Finally, if that is not enough the Mitchell Report which was tasked with looking into the cause of the violence that began in mid-2000 concluded

“The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’”

The editorial ends by scandalously picking out the South African Jewish community, asking us to share with Israel the secret to the successful marriage that occurred in South Africa – despite the fact that the Israelis and Palestinians need a divorce – not a marriage.

By the same token, South African Jewry should examine how it can share with Israel the lessons learnt from our negotiated settlement, which resulted in this country’s peaceful transition from a racial powder keg to a paragon of reason and tolerance.

It's another pattern prevalent amongst South African editorialists – singling out the South African Jews to influence the Israelis without placing any responsibility on the South African Muslims to influence the radical Islamic gangs that seek to destroy Israel.

Update
Thanks to the ever dependable Soccer Dad for some more links that refute the myth that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount triggered the Intifada.

At Soccer Dad an excerpt from David Samuels's article in the Atlantic where Mamduh Nofal, the former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, tells his account of how Arafat planned the violent uprising against unarmed civilians.

The day after Sharon's visit, violence escalated when Israeli Border Policeman Yossi Tabeja was shot dead by his Palestinian counterpart on one of their joint patrols near Kalkilya.

Here's a letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the UN to Kofi Annan which says that the violence started on September 13. It includes the account of violence on the eve of the Jewish New Year when Palestinians on the Temple Mount hurled rocks at the Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below them.

Comments

[greenmamba]

Irrespective of what really happened with the Al Aqsa walk, let's assume that Sharon is the kind of man the media likes to portray. A cold-blooded, murdering provocateur.

He walks to the mosque. Let's recall that this is Judaism's holiest site and is in territory captured during the '67 war. The Israelis nonetheless allowed the Waqf to maintain control of it.

How does world opinion figure that this justifies the Intifada? Let us also recall that the same world opinion expects Israel to be "moderate" when responding to the provocation of a suicide bombing.

This argument clearly indicates the bias of the critics and renders their opinions invalid.

[Anti-UN]

Brilliant take on things GreenMamba.

The apply different levels of expected morality for the two sides - which is in itself quite racist...no?

[mike]

Couldn’t agree with you more Greenmamba. I just don’t understand why the international community believes that it was such a horrendous crime for a Jewish Israeli politician to visit the holiest site in Judaism. So horrible that it even justifies Palestinian suicide terrorism. The hypocrisy of much of the media is sickening. Not only do they not criticize Palestinians that deny Jews their right to religious freedom on the Temple Mount but in fact openly support their efforts. It is unbelievable to me that Jews are scolded for excising their legitimate rights.