On December 10, 2006, in An Open Letter to the New York Times, entitled Smearing Jimmy Carter, HUGH SANSOM took the New York Times to task:
The New York Times has now joined the slander campaign against President Jimmy Carter following the release of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. (The paper gets the title wrong -- there's a colon.)
Just how ignorant does the Times think its readers are? All of the "critics" cited -- Kenneth Stein, Alan Dershowitz, David Makovsky and the Wiesenthal Center -- are unqualified apologists for Israel and its occupation.
The paper claims that Stein's "criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book". What chorus can the Times have in mind if the only critics it can find just happen to be pro-Israel anti-Arabists?
Stein might be the most moderate -- he's also the most insignificant. One way or another, the Times cites --not one example-- of the claimed factual errors or copying, except to convey Stein's vague (and possibly actionable) assertions about an unnamed source.
Professor Stein, by the way, was also part of a campaign at Emory University to stop Mary Robinson, former Irish President and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, from speaking at Emory's 2004 commencement -- because of her criticism of Israel.
Makovsky is a long-time apologist for Israeli occupation and settlements. He likewise refers to many errors. The Times cites none. Did Makovsky offer none?
The Wiesenthal Center has never offered any criticism of occupation. It does routinely charge --any-- critic of Israel with anti-Semitism.
Dershowitz is a vicious apologist not just for Israeli occupation but for Israeli atrocities. His own book The Case for Israel really has been shown to be riddled with errors and probably plagiarized (from Joan Peters's debunked From Time Immemorial). Dershowitz plagiarizes 'fact' from fiction, but the Times makes no mention of this.
The Times is fond of turning to Dershowitz. It did so when Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival appeared on the best seller lists following a mention before the UN by Hugo Chavez. Then as now, Dershowitz exhibited no experience of or interest in either reading or truth. Yet the Times thinks not only that he's worth citing, but worth citing repeatedly and without qualification.
It is notable that the Times says nothing at all to suggest that these Carter critics might have an axe to grind. But it shows no comparable hesitation when the critic is one of US or Israeli actions. Chomsky and others like him are routinely identified by their criticism of US and Israeli policy. Why the discrepancy?
The Times provides yet another example of just how right Professors Walt and Mearsheimer are.
More recently, Sansom took Dennis Ross, a known Israel shill, who was instrumental in the attempt to get Barak off the hook and blame Arafat for the failure of the Camp David negotiations, to task as well.
In his letter to the NYT’s editor is entitled, Dennis Ross' curious maps problem, Hugh Sansom goes further concerning the so-called "generous offer." As is well known, there was an attempt to dupe the American public about who was to blame for the Clinton’s failure at Camp David. In fact, Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster and master of deceit, recommended to The Israel Project, a right wing Israeli propaganda organization, that it continue talking about the "supposedly generous offer." Supposedly, indeed.
To the Editor:
Dennis Ross's ["Don't Play With Maps," 9 January 2007, The New York Times] concern over President Carter's use of maps in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is curious.
The first of the maps on page 148 does indeed resemble an Israeli map -- one presented at Eilat in May 2000. The Palestinians rejected it categorically then. Perhaps it was also presented in July 2000 at Camp David. That Israel should have presented it at all shows audacity -- and little Israeli interest in peace. That it might have been presented again boggles the mind.
The second map seems a hybrid of one Israel presented in December 2000 and another at Taba in January, 2001. Barak recalled his representatives from the January discussions -- arguably because they were going too well for an Israeli leader determined to annex larger sections of the West Bank than he was advertising. Israel's propagandists, like Ross, prefer to pretend Taba never occurred.
One way or another, the mythology in question is not that of Carter or critics of Israel, but that of Ross and Israel's supporters.
Ross, understandably for one perpetuating a myth, makes no mention of key features of the "generous" proposal he pretends was offered. That proposal would have annexed a large portion of an East Jerusalem taken from Palestinians. That "currently Jewish" Ross uses casually glosses over the fact of Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from homes in the city.
Ross also fails to mention either Israel's intention to retain control of many water resources in the West Bank or its plan to annex large blocks of territory -- illegally settled -- in such a way as to leave a Palestine only barely contiguous, if at all. Small percentages can still be significant -- hardly a point lost on Israelis or Americans. After all, if 3 percent (according to Ross alone) is so insignificant, why would Israel be so determined to keep it?
But let us suppose that Ross is entirely honest and accurate. Why should Palestians be required to surrender land illegally taken, occupied and settled by Israel?
Finally, Ross's "generous" claim that he is not concerned with "what appeared to be ... misappropriation" is fortunate. His book was first published in 2004. The Foundation for Middle East Peace published far more detailed maps of Barak, Clinton and other proposals in 2001. Where did Ross get his maps?
Sincerely,
Hugh Sansom
Brooklyn, NY
Where did Ross get his maps? It was well known that during the Camp David/Taba negotiations, Israel distinctly avoided drawing any maps of their proposals. The reason is obvious in the maps Ross published: they clearly support the Bantustan solution, which would have condemned Palestinians to the "separatist" fate of Blacks in South Africa under the White Afrikaaner government.
The laughable aspect of Dennis Ross’ Israel propaganda is that it has now got him into hot water to explain himself.
At least Barak has since come clean.
On the Charlie Rose Show, on January 25, 2005, when asked about removing the West Bank settlements, Barak stated, "I proposed this disengagement (Sharon’s concept) and couldn’t even get the support of Labor (his own party)" (As everyone knows, the Bantustans offered to Arafat were to retain the Israeli only settlements and roads within them. See Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land below for details).
Asked if he ever accepted Taba (Taba was where the notion of a second generous offer originated, after the first generous offer broke down under the weight of reality), Barak stated, "there was no agreement."
Asked what the difference was between Camp David and Taba, Barak stated, "Taba? There was no negotiation, never. No meetings, no teams, no authority for the teams to negotiate anything. No Americans in the room, no record, nothing. Unofficial contact between senior Israelis...."
In essence, Barak refuted the legitimacy of Taba and stated that it did not have any significance in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations of 2000. To date, the Israel government, while continuing to colonize the West Bank, has never offered the Palestinian people a sovereign state of their own.
That truth of course will not stop Dennis Ross from continuing to shill for Israel’s right wing through lies and deception.
Crossposted at Eternal Hope: http://eternalhope.blog-city.com/