Letter to the San Francisco Chronicle

in response to "news analysis" of May 16, 2002

(original article below)

By Stefan Sharkansky

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Department of Journalistic Standards

I was fascinated by today's "news analysis" by Ashraf Khalil titled "Roads to Mideast Peace Diverge".

There was something about the histrionically one-sided and selectively factual piece that was redolent of what one usually finds in a state-owned Arab newspaper. Never mind the Orwellian stunt of portraying Mubarak, Assad and the Crown Prince as a trio of peace activists. Just look closely at Khalil's discussion of Israel. For example, the opening paragraph with the information that "Israel -- having largely completed its West Bank offensive and reportedly turning its eye toward Gaza -- has opted to pursue security through force.". Really? All the stories that I've read indicated that Israel unilaterally called off any operations in Gaza in order to give diplomacy a chance.

The last paragraph, referring to the recent vote by Likud party activists to oppose a Palestinian state concludes that "Israel continues to move further to the right." Oh? The analyst seems to ignore all the signs that this party vote was merely an unsuccessful political stunt that was out of step with mainstream public opinion. Prime Minister Sharon opposed the proposal. Voices in the Israeli press ridiculed Netanyahu for painting himself into a corner of irrelevance. A leading moderate Israeli journalist who was actually at the party conference (was Ashraf Khalil there?) called it "an astonishing display of self-destructiveness [for the Likud itself]" Leaders of the rival Labor Party shortly thereafter declared their support of unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories. An Israeli public opinion poll taken immediately after the Likud vote indicated that 63% of Israeli voters supported Palestinian statehood, and a majority of likely Likud voters continue to support Sharon over Netanyahu despite the former's opposition to the party vote. Now, in light of all these facts, who would conclude that the Likud party vote is evidence of Israel moving further to the right?

Well, Ashraf Khalil apparently did, and my suspicions about the origins of the column? It turns out that the piece first appeared in something called ... "The Cairo Times", where Khalil is the "Editor".

If one studies the Cairo Times web site, one learns that the Cairo Times is "independent", but that every issue must be approved by Egyptian government censors. I don't believe we have government newspaper censors in the US, so forgive me for insinuating that your publication of this editorial suggests that you don't understand what government censors are.

Now, to be fair to the Chronicle, you did publish a lengthy piece that covered the Israeli Labor party's peace proposals in a fair light. But do you feel such a strong impulse to "balance" every story about conciliatory peace-seeking Israelis by running Arab government-approved propaganda that paints Israel as a nation of intransigent right-wing militarists, and obscuring its source?

If you feel the need, for some reason, to publish authentic Arab journalism, you could at least help your readers understand its context by appropriately labelling the pieces, such as "written by the editor of the Cairo Times, approved for publication by the Egyptian government". But you did not do this, instead you dignified the author with the label of "Chronicle Foreign Service" I am sufficiently knowledgeable about the Middle East to be skeptical of such writing and sufficiently Internet-savvy to find out who Ashraf Khalil is. But I suspect that most of your readers need a few more hints from the Chronicle to help them put opinion pieces in their proper perspective. When the Chronicle lends its good name and credibility to "news analysis", it has the power to influence attitudes. When the mainstream local newspaper prints bogus analysis equating Israel with intransigent right-wing militarism, it might help explain why anti-Israeli protestors at SF State might feel emboldened to commit anti-Semitic violence thinking it a courageous act of fighting oppression.

I've remained a loyal Chronicle subscriber, even though I've questioned some of your coverage of the Middle East. But now I simply question the value of your newspaper altogether. I am suspending my subscription, just as I would have suspended my subscription back in the days of the Soviet Union if you had printed regurgitated editorials from Pravda under your own byline. I can get TV and movie listings on Yahoo! for free. When I'm in the mood to chuckle at Arab propaganda, I can read the Chronicle online for free, the same way I read the Cairo Times.

Original Article

NEWS ANALYSIS
Roads to Mideast peace diverge

As Israel pursues peace through force, Arabs opt for diplomacy

Ashraf Khalil, Chronicle Foreign Service

Cairo -- The strategies on both sides seem pretty well set for the time being.

Israel -- having largely completed its West Bank offensive and reportedly turning its eye toward Gaza -- has opted to pursue security through force. The Arab states -- either through a genuine desire for a peaceful solution or a recognition of their own military limitations -- have chosen the diplomatic route.

So it was that three of the region's top leaders -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, and de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Abdullah -- gathered last weekend in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh for a little-reported meeting that reiterated their support for the olive branch extended at the recent Arab summit in Beirut.

A post-parley statement read by Egyptian Information Minister Safwat Sherif declared the Saudi initiative adopted in Beirut -- which offered Israel full diplomatic relations with all Arab countries in exchange for withdrawal behind 1967 borders -- "the base for any Arab move to achieve the aspired just and comprehensive peace."

The three leaders also took a major step by collectively rejecting "all forms of violence" -- including suicide bombings.

"This was new, and it was done communally," said American University in Cairo political science Professor Walid Kazziha, who said the group endorsement would help shield any one regime from criticism.

Acts of violence against Israeli soldiers and settlers inside the Palestinian territories are almost universally supported in the Arab world, but the issue of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians has been one of continuing debate.

Critics have labeled the tactic either immoral or strategically unsound, while proponents maintain it as a legitimate strategy for a guerrilla struggle against a superior Israeli military force.

The move also marks another step in a gradual public moderation process for Assad. The second-generation Syrian leader has largely continued the hard line long held by his late father, Hafez Assad -- repeatedly pushing for countries like Egypt to sever diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

But at Beirut, Assad dropped his long-standing demands for a full right of return for all Palestinian refugees and signed onto a final agreement that asked only for a "fair and complete settlement to the refugee issue." .

Now, Assad has, at least publicly, moved further toward the region's political moderates.

Kazziha said Assad's mere presence at a summit with the two primary leaders of the moderate Arab camp was a notable event and a probable sign of his desire to not be diplomatically marginalized by a hard-line stance -- as his fiercely anti-Israel father was.

The new emphasis on the political high road also held sway at the Arab Energy Conference that opened in Cairo on Saturday. In what was likely a response to Iraq's recent monthlong suspension of oil exports, the Egyptian and Saudi representatives came out strongly against any kind of petroleum pressure tactics.

"We tell the whole world that we respect oil consumers and endeavor to provide stability to their economies," Mubarak said in a statement read by Prime Minister Atef Ebeid.

These sentiments were echoed by Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi, declaring his country was "keen to maintain stability in the international oil market."

The end result of the weekend's events, according to Kazziha, was a regional Arab acknowledgment that only international diplomacy can salvage the Palestinian cause now -- and that the road to an international solution goes through Washington.

"The only thing that's left is to use their persuasive powers to convince the United States," he said. "They're not ready to use the oil wedge, and they don't have the military capability."

The minisummit was also, perhaps, a dry run for solidifying a unified Arab approach to a proposed international peace summit on the Palestinian issue. The as-yet-unscheduled conference is to take place under the aegis of the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia.

Kazziha said the wide umbrella of sponsorship of the conference gave the Arab nations their best chance yet to publicize the Palestinians' plight and push for an acceptable solution.

"The intransigence of the (Israeli) leadership could become so obvious as to turn international opinion," he said. "The U.S. does not want to appear as the only sponsor, because it does not want to face the Israeli lobby head on in case the conference heads in a direction that is unacceptable to them."

That, of course, is exactly what the Arabs would like to see happen -- the isolation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a bellicose obstructionist unwilling to take the hard decisions necessary for a lasting peace.

Meanwhile, on the Israeli side, the security-through-force camp seems to be digging in further, as witnessed by the Likud party's decision on Sunday to embarrass Sharon by opposing any formation of an independent Palestinian state. The vote had more to do with internal skirmishing between Sharon and his longtime rival, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, than anything involving the Palestinians.

But if Arab states continue their effort to appear moderate and conciliatory, while Israel continues to move further to the right, international sympathy may just sway enough for the Arab strategy to bear fruit.

(copyright 2002 San Francisco Chronicle)