 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 12 - 18 October 2000 Issue No. 503 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 12 - 18 October 2000 Issue No. 503
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Palestine International Economy Opinion Culture Books Interview Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Blaming the victims
By Thomas GorguissianIt did not take long for scenes of young Mohamed Al-Dorra's death to taper off of American television screens. During the last two weeks, pictures in both the printed and broadcast media have in general been more explicit than press reports in pointing out the imbalance between the Palestinian civilians on one side and the heavily armed Israeli forces on the other.
But less than a week into the Intifada at Al-Haram Al-Sharif, Israeli politician Ariel Sharon, the instigator of the bloody clashes, was very much present in the American media. Starting with ABC's Nightline and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, he was hosted to explain and justify his actions. Sharon used those forums, unsurprisingly, to blame Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for manipulating the created tension and to criticise Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for making concessions.
Before last weekend, the so-called "Likudist" supporters of Israel in the punditry business were all over the American media, complaining about Arafat's Tanzim (organisation), the so-called "war songs" that were broadcast on Palestinian television before the clashes erupted and Arafat's and his armed police's role in "escalating the tensions and clashes."
On 6 October, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthamme wrote about "Arafat's war" saying, "This is, as the Palestinians openly call it, a war for Jerusalem. Not, as the world press has reported endlessly and fatuously, an expression of Palestinian frustration. Frustration with what? Israeli occupation? It ended years ago; 99 per cent of Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser Arafat. Over territory? Barak has conceded virtually the entire West Bank. Over political subordination? Barak offered full recognition of the first independent Palestinian state in history."
Soon after, interviews were being broadcast reflecting some of these critical views toward Palestinians and Arafat. Last Sunday morning, talk shows were teeming with criticism of Palestinians, pro-Israel bias and one-sided views. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaking about the situation on CNN, said, "What has been going on here is increasing violence in terms of the Israelis feeling under siege by the Palestinian rock-throwers and the street gangs, the Tanzim, and feeling, basically, as they have pulled back from places, that the Palestinians have moved in."
Expressing outrage in the United States and Indonesia
(photos:AFP, AP, Reuters)
Albright was on two talk shows trying to explain why the US abstained from voting in the case of the UN Security Council Resolution, condemning the "excessive use of violence against Palestinians" but without mentioning Israel by name. "This was a very difficult issue because we tried very hard to get this resolution to be more evenhanded, because the problem, as I said, is that the Palestinians are putting the Israelis under siege in many ways. We are concerned about the excessive use of force, but also about this siege mentality that is really being provoked, in a way, by all the stone-throwers. But we have a very important role to play in the peace process. We have to be the honest broker, the negotiator, in this, and I think that by abstaining, we allow ourselves to continue that role," Albright told Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press."
As expected, Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Lieberman expressed his understanding of the vote to abstain, especially given that the US is "the only country in the world that has the capacity to negotiate with parties on all sides in the Middle East", as he put it.
Support for the UN vote came from an unexpected politician, the Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, a long time critic of the United Nations. Buchanan used this opportunity to harshly criticise Israel. "For years and years and years, we have allowed these Israelis to build up these illegal settlements on the West Bank, in East Jerusalem, in the Golan Heights, in Gaza. This has put all that dynamite down there," Buchanan said. "We did it because, quite frankly, US foreign policy in the Middle East is held hostage to special interests in the US, the Israeli lobby, quite frankly, and those who sustain and support it," he added. Buchanan described Sharon's visit as a "stupid and provocative act" and the events it triggered as a "popular uprising" or "people's revolution." "The Palestinian people have been occupied, persecuted and oppressed for decades and now they are responding to that," Buchanan said. "And certainly, Americans, quite frankly, who drove the British out of our country in a violent act for offenses far less than what are taking place here, ought to understand this."
On another battleground, in the famous New York senatorial race between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio, the UN vote became an issue too. Both candidates disagreed with the American official voting stand. "I believe it was a wrong move not to have vetoed it, that it was inaccurate and one-sided," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question raised during the TV debate.
New York Daily News' columnist Lars Erik Nelson, commenting on this odd situation, wrote, "Hillary Rodham Clinton has stuck with her husband through personal scandal, endless investigation, cruel humiliation, tough elections and partisan impeachment. And then along came former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. What independent counsel Kenneth Starr and the House impeachment managers could not do, Sharon did. He drove a wedge between Hillary and her husband."
Related stories:
'Why?' 5 - 11 October 2000
Focus on Palestine
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
