Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
November 29, 2007
Annapolis Analysis.
KBRM sent the following analysis of the Annapolis peace conference by the Anti-Defamation League to newspaper editors:Dear Editor,
The following brief article by the Anti-Defamation League presents a view of the Annapolis meeting not often seen in NZ newspapers. I hope you will take a minute to read it. If you should choose to publish it as an opinion article, there is no reprint fee, as per the following email that I received from ADL.
‘As the article is now on our website http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/Annapolis_Analysis.htm, it can be reprinted with credit to ADL. There are no reprint fees.
Thank you for contacting ADL.
ADL Media’
Sincerely
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast
Here is the article, or you may see it on the web page cited.
Annapolis Analysis
The Annapolis conference has just about come and gone. Will it be remembered as the beginning of a breakthrough toward Israeli-Palestinian peace or will it be condemned as falsely raising expectations and leading to a resurgence of violence? Or will it simply be forgotten?
The answer lies in whether the Palestinians have undergone true change. Despite the complexities of Israeli politics, there is little doubt that Israel will support significant concessions on the core issues if they come to believe that the Palestinians — this time around — are serious about peace and reconciliation.
Israeli cynicism about this would be understandable. Let's remember that the Oslo Accords, the Camp David and Taba negotiations in 2000, the Road Map, and the Israeli disengagement from Gaza were all previous occasions where the Palestinians were given direct opportunities to show they were interested in living in peace with Israel. On each occasion, Palestinian unwillingness to take the necessary steps for peaceful coexistence undermined these efforts.
Why think the current effort will lead to a different result? Maybe because current Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are realistic moderates who genuinely seek reconciliation. Maybe because the Arab states, fearful of Iran and other Islamic extremists, know that they must be newly open to Israel, their true ally in the struggle against terrorists. Maybe because the international community understands that Palestinian accommodation is critical to achieve an agreement that can help the West in the struggle against the terror network.
These, however, are all maybes and probably long-shot maybes.
The process articulated by President Bush and by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders must be given a chance. If all parties recognize and act on the proposition that it can only work if there is true Palestinian change, then there is hope that Annapolis will be remembered as a milestone toward peace. If not, then the region will remain mired in the quicksand that has consumed it for decades.
December 1, 2007
In general, the news coverage of the Annapolis conference turned out to be better balanced than expected. An exception was the Otago Daily Times, which ran an inflammatory headline, as described in the following letter to the editor, Murray Kirkness:
Dear Murray,
Please correct the false and inflammatory headline (Olmert mentions 'apartheid', Dec. 1, p. 11) that was inserted over an otherwise well-balanced article by the AP. First of all, the Prime Minister never used the word 'apartheid', as can be verified by looking at the full Ha'aretz article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html, and yet it is put in quote marks in the headline. Second, the thrust of his remarks was in the exact opposite direction. Olmert was warning that if a two-state solution, which he greatly desires, does not come about it could lead to apartheid, which he is very much against.
As you know, the word apartheid has been, quite incorrectly, applied to present-day Israel, and your headline only added to that misconception.
I hope you will run a correction, pointing out both the explicit error in quotation and the implicit error in substance. If you don't want to do that, I ask you to publish this letter, suitably edited, as a letter to the editor.
Thanks very much.
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast
An example of well-balanced and truthful coverage was provided by The Press of Christchurch with an excellent editorial and cartoon — except for one small problem:
Dear editor,
Your editorial ‘Peace plays’ (Nov. 30, 2007) was spot on — until the last paragraph. The real ‘hard stuff’ — as illustrated by Moreu in his excellent cartoon of Dec. 1 — is the ongoing intention to destroy Israel by Arab terrorist groups such as Hamas. If these suicide bombings and rocket attacks can be permanently stopped, Israel will be happy to reach a compromise on the issues you listed. Even the separation barrier will come down. Lacking that, no peace is possible, as the world should have learned from trying to appease Hitler in 1938.
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast