FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Response to Kathleen Christison

Jerusalem.

First, I want to thank you all for caring enough to write, and I want to apologize for this collective letter, which may not respond to all of your varying points. Many of you wrote individually, but since I also was faced with an organized letter campaign, this seems a reasonable way to try to respond. But in particular I want to thank Kathy Christison, Michael Brown and Jimmy Johnson for their thoughtful responses.

In general, I would urge readers not to confuse analysis with support. My effort is to describe what is happening on the ground and what it means demographically, as well as geographically, for the various populations, and what the impact might be even before final-status talks begin. My effort is to lay out what Israel plans as best as I can divine them, in the context of a news story with a large graphic and limited space.

For many of you, the article should serve as a wake-up call. Don’t confuse the messenger with the message.

Nor should you expect a full history lesson in every article, which has limits on length and is subject to trimming at the last minute.

My data are not a matter for major dispute, and were not taken exclusively by any means from the work of David Makovsky at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I used material from the census bureaus of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, from Peace Now, from Ir Amim, from the Israeli Defense Ministry and the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. There is no great disagreement on where the barrier is going or on the numbers of people on either side of it.

I tried to be careful to deal with East Jerusalem separately, given the Israeli annexation, which of course is in dispute. And I made that clear. I then quote the Israeli Ministry of Defense as saying that 85,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem with Israeli identity cards on the Israeli side of the barrier. That is in the story to emphasize it, not to diminish it. But it is not true that all Palestinians living inside what is generally called Jerusalem, never mind the municipal boundaries, will live inside the barrier or wall.

These, for example, are Ministry of Defense figures: Out of the 230,000 Palestinians (Ministry of Interior records) bearing blue I.D, registered as living in Jerusalem, 90,000 live outside the Jerusalem municipality and 55,000 live inside the municipal area but outside the barrier; 85,000 Palestinians with blue ID live in Jerusalem on the Israeli side of the barrier.

And I have written in the past, as others at The Times have done many times, of the disputes over land, seizures of land, uprooting of olive trees, gates across fields, difficulty of travel, multiple checkpoints and so on that are faced by ordinary Palestinians – from Jayyous and Nablus to East Jerusalem and Khan Yunis. These are hardly unknown issues to the readers of my newspaper.

Michael Brown and some others feel I did not fully represent the international view that Israeli settlement building across the green line is illegal, and that I simply said: “Palestinians argue in any case that all Israeli settlements beyond the green line are illegal. They reject the annexation of east Jerusalem and say that even the 8 percent of the West Bank inside the barrier is among the best land for housing and agriculture. Unilateralism, they say, is no substitute for negotiations.” Elsewhere in the piece, I note that the Palestinians regard the Israelis living in East Jerusalem as illegal settlers.

I think Mr. Brown has a point. There are U.N. resolutions calling the Israeli settlements illegal, and many different countries, some of them European, have taken the same view. The United States view has migrated from the Carter days to whatever we can deduce from the ambiguities of the road map, which I also felt I had to take some room to explain.

But most “international law” is ambiguous or advisory, whether we like it or not. The applicability of the 4th Geneva convention, for example, and what parts of it, are a subject for intense legal debate in Israel and various court rulings, with questions at issue about the sovereignty of Jerusalem and the West Bank before 1967. You may disparage such debates, but they are real. Even the key U.N. resolution about land for peace was negotiated to say that Israel must withdraw “from territories” — not from “all territories.”

I’m not an international lawyer, I’m glad to say, but I should have broadened the point beyond the Palestinian view, to emphasize that this view is widely shared by a number of countries. We have, of course, written that in the past.

Similarly, Mr. Brown and others believe I should have cited the advisory opinion last summer of the International Court of Justice on the route of the barrier, which is, according to the court, illegal wherever it is built over the green line. I also think this is a fair point, and in fact, a reference to that decision was cut. There were other quotes cut that I was sorry to lose, that I felt helped broaden the perspective of the article.

But I take responsibility for the piece. And I would ask you to read it with these notes in mind.

Others said I should have emphasized how much of the rest of the West Bank is desert, or concentrated on the Jordan Valley, or a number of other matters.

And some wrote to me insisting that I never noted certain facts, which in fact I did note in the piece. Someone said I wrote that Israel is only building on 8 percent of the West Bank, which I did not write – in fact I described how West Bank settlement is continuing beyond the route of the barrier in contravention of Israeli promises. Some said I never noted that the 8 percent includes much of the best agricultural land or various other comments that indicated less than attentive reading.

Others urged me to talk to various sources, including some, like Jeff Halper, for example, whom I know and have spent time with, including a tour of Maale Adumim and the barrier. But I welcome all such suggestions.

And I also got this response, among a small group of similar expressions:

“Congratulations, your Mideast coverage is so biased and anti-Israel that Palestinian publications now use it verbatim. For example today,The Palestinian Media Center used your front page story from today about the fence and other issues to keep its propaganda machine going. Whatever journalistic integrity the Times had, has long disappeared. The story of course had to be put on the front page since there was no other newsworthy story going on and the slant had to promote terrorism and free movement for known murderers. Great job, Times.”

Yours sincerely,

STEVEN ERLANGER
Bureau Chief
Jerusalem
The New York Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

February 19, 2019
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Troublesome Possibilities: The Left and Tulsi Gabbard
Patrick Cockburn
She Didn’t Start the Fire: Why Attack the ISIS Bride?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Literature and Theater During War: Why Euripides Still Matters
Maximilian Werner
The Night of Terror: Wyoming Game and Fish’s Latest Attempt to Close the Book on the Mark Uptain Tragedy
Conn Hallinan
Erdogan is Destined for Another Rebuke in Turkey
Nyla Ali Khan
Politics of Jammu and Kashmir: The Only Viable Way is Forward
Mark Ashwill
On the Outside Looking In: an American in Vietnam
Joyce Nelson
Sir Richard Branson’s Venezuelan-Border PR Stunt
Ron Jacobs
Day of Remembrance and the Music of Anthony Brown        
Cesar Chelala
Women’s Critical Role in Saving the Environment
February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
Thomas Knapp
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC
Mitchel Cohen
A Tale of Two Citations: Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and Michael Harrington’s “The Other America”
Jake Johnston
Haiti and the Collapse of a Political and Economic System
Dave Lindorff
It’s Not Just Trump and the Republicans
Laura Flanders
An End to Amazon’s Two-Bit Romance. No Low-Rent Rendezvous.
Patrick Walker
Venezuelan Coup Democrats Vomit on Green New Deal
Natalie Dowzicky
The Millennial Generation Will Tear Down Trump’s Wall
Nick Licata
Of Stress and Inequality
Joseph G. Ramsey
Waking Up on President’s Day During the Reign of Donald Trump
Elliot Sperber
Greater Than Food
Weekend Edition
February 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Matthew Hoh
Time for Peace in Afghanistan and an End to the Lies
Chris Floyd
Pence and the Benjamins: An Eternity of Anti-Semitism
Rob Urie
The Green New Deal, Capitalism and the State
Jim Kavanagh
The Siege of Venezuela and the Travails of Empire
Paul Street
Someone Needs to Teach These As$#oles a Lesson
Andrew Levine
World Historical Donald: Unwitting and Unwilling Author of The Green New Deal
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Third Rail-Roaded
Eric Draitser
Impacts of Exploding US Oil Production on Climate and Foreign Policy
Ron Jacobs
Maduro, Guaidó and American Exceptionalism
John Laforge
Nuclear Power Can’t Survive, Much Less Slow Climate Disruption
Joyce Nelson
Venezuela & The Mighty Wurlitzer
Jonathan Cook
In Hebron, Israel Removes the Last Restraint on Its Settlers’ Reign of Terror
Ramzy Baroud
Enough Western Meddling and Interventions: Let the Venezuelan People Decide
Robert Fantina
Congress, Israel and the Politics of “Righteous Indignation”
Dave Lindorff
Using Students, Teachers, Journalists and other Professionals as Spies Puts Everyone in Jeopardy
Kathy Kelly
What it Really Takes to Secure Peace in Afghanistan
Brian Cloughley
In Libya, “We Came, We Saw, He Died.” Now, Maduro?
Nicky Reid
The Councils Before Maduro!
Gary Leupp
“It’s All About the Benjamins, Baby”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail