From PMwatch
Over the last four days, three of the most influential US newspapers - the New York Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post - have carried stories about the plans of Kadima, the ruling Israeli party, to unilaterally establish Israel’s borders by annexing major settlements in the West Bank, maintaining Israel’s Wall and possibly annexing the Jordan Valley. The announcement of Kadima’s plans to take permanent control of up to 50% of the West Bank marks a major new development that threatens any chance for a peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

While noting Palestinian objections to this Israeli plan, the three newspapers failed to inform their readers of the broad international consensus among respected third parties that Israeli annexation of West Bank land violates international law. The newspapers present the issues of Israeli settlements, the Wall and Israeli annexation of land as a “he said she said” dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, leaving out the positions of most governments, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and major human rights organizations on the illegality of Israel’s Wall, settlements and annexation of Palestinian land.

In June 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that the construction of Israel’s Wall on Palestinian land in the West Bank violated international law. Similarly, UN Security Council resolutions, the United States government, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem have all stated that Israeli settlements in the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - are illegal according to international law (see citations from each below). Their conclusions are firmly rooted in the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits an occupying power from transferring civilians from the occupying power’s territory into the occupied territory, and from creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population.

It is crucial that major US newspapers inform the American public of the broad international consensus on the illegality of Kadima’s plans.

The New York Times on Kadima’s Annexation Plans: Two articles by Greg Myre focused on Kadima’s plans – “Olmert Wants to Define Borders, Ally Says” on May 6th, and “Olmert Outlines Plans for Israel’s Borders” on May 10th. The May 6 article stated that: “Under the current plan for the route, the barrier would keep about 10 percent of the West Bank on the Israeli side, incorporating the major settlement blocs and East Jerusalem. But Mr. Olmert has also said that Israel cannot abandon the Jordan Valley, which includes many small settlements far beyond the West Bank barrier and near the border with Jordan.” The two articles note objections by Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat to these Israeli plans, and Palestinian and American objections to the expansion of the Maleh Adumim settlement. However, neither article cites the broad international consensus that these Israeli plans violate international law.

Only a third New York Times article on May 8th by Steven Erlanger “Israeli Election campaign Start in Earnest,” touches briefly on international law in another context stating that, “Mr. Olmert said Tuesday that he would reduce government spending on West Bank settlements, considered illegal by much of the world and an “obstacle to peace” by Washington.”

The Washington Post on Kadima’s Annexation Plans: In his March 6 article “Kadima Planning West Bank Pullout”, Scott Wilson reported that, Palestinian objections to Israeli plans and a US Embassy representative statement that, “The United States believes that final-status issues need to be settled by negotiation between both parties.”

However, Scott Wilson’s article included no reference to the broad international consensus that Kadima’s plans violate international law.

The Los Angeles Times on Kadima’s Annexation Plans: In his March 6 article, “Israeli Party to Follow the Path of Sharon”, Ken Ellingwood reported that, “Olmert, who has said he wants to oversee the drawing of permanent borders, favors keeping three main settlement blocks and a strip of territory along the border with Jordan… Critics on the left, such as Labor’s leader, Amir Peretz, say unilateral actions by Israel hurt the possibility of advancing the peace process by brushing aside moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas’ Fatah movement.”

However, Ken Ellingwood’s article included no reference to the broad international consensus that Kadima’s plans violate international law.

Write an individualized email to one, two or all three of these newspapers at:

LA Times: ken.ellingwood@latimes.com, laura.king@latimes.com, letters@latimes.com, readers.rep@latimes.com, foreign@latimes.com

New York Times: public@nytimes.com, letters@nytimes.com, erlanger@nytimes.com, myre@nytimes.com, chira@nytimes.com, bronnere@nytimes.com

Washington Post: washpostme@yahoo.com, wilsons@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, foreign@washpost.com

Tell them that reporting solely on Israeli and Palestinian views of Kadima’s West Bank annexation plans is insufficient. Reporters should include the positions of respected third parties on Kadima’s plans. Reporters should note in all articles mentioning the Wall, Israeli settlements and Israeli plans to annex Palestinian land in the West Bank- including East Jerusalem - that leading human rights groups, governments, the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council all agree that these Israeli actions violate international law.

A) EXCERPTS FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE

Israeli Party to Follow the Path of Sharon
March 6, 2006
By Ken Ellingwood

Olmert, who has said he wants to oversee the drawing of permanent borders, favors keeping three main settlement blocks and a strip of territory along the border with Jordan…

Critics on the left, such as Labor’s leader, Amir Peretz, say unilateral actions by Israel hurt the possibility of advancing the peace process by brushing aside moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas’ Fatah movement, once dominant in Palestinian politics, lost big in the legislative vote, but he remains president.

B) EXCERPTS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE

Kadima Planning West Bank Pullout
March 6, 2006
Scott Wilson

“This reflects the determination of the Israeli government to continue its policy of dictation rather than negotiation,” said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. “I believe it will only add to the complexities of the larger problems.”…

Stuart Tuttle, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, declined to comment on Dichter’s statement. But he said, “The road map is the only internationally agreed-upon solution to these issues,” which include the final status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. “The United States believes that final-status issues need to be settled by negotiation between both parties,” he said…

There are an estimated 250,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, not including those in East Jerusalem, whose annexation by Israel following the 1967 Middle East war is not recognized internationally.

C) EXCERPTS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES

Olmert Wants to Define Borders, Ally Says
March 6, 2006
Greg Myre

About 250,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, land captured by Israel in the 1967 war. The figure does not include 200,000 Israelis who live in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after the war.

The Palestinians are sure to object to any borders that Israel draws itself, but the two leading Palestinian factions offered contrasting opinions on Sunday on the prospect of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from some settlements.

The Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah movement favor a negotiated settlement with Israel and generally oppose one-sided Israeli actions. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, reaffirmed this position on Sunday, saying such Israeli moves would complicate any future negotiations…

Under the current plan for the route, the barrier would keep about 10 percent of the West Bank on the Israeli side, incorporating the major settlement blocs and East Jerusalem. But Mr. Olmert has also said that Israel cannot abandon the Jordan Valley, which includes many small settlements far beyond the West Bank barrier and near the border with Jordan.

Israeli Election campaign Start in Earnest
March 8, 2006
Steven Erlanger

Mr. Olmert said Tuesday that he would reduce government spending on West Bank settlements, considered illegal by much of the world and an “obstacle to peace” by Washington. Kadima is also trying to protect its right flank from Mr. Netanyahu and reassure voters that the party will guard their security the way they trusted Mr. Sharon to do.

Olmert Outlines Plans for Israel’s Borders
March 10, 2006
Greg Myre

Mr. Olmert also said he planned further development in Israel’s largest settlement, Maale Adumim, which would eventually link up with nearby East Jerusalem. Palestinians vehemently oppose such a move, because it would further isolate the Arab parts of East Jerusalem. The United States has also objected…

On another contentious topic, Israel has insisted that its West Bank separation barrier, which would keep about 10 percent of West Bank land on the Israeli side, is being built as a security measure. Mr. Olmert said it could form the basis for a border, with some modifications.

“The course of the fence, which until now has been a security fence, will be in line with the new course of the permanent border,” Mr. Olmert told Haaretz. “There may be cases in which we move the fence eastward, there may be cases in which we move the fence westward, in line with what we agree upon.”

Browse Timeline

• « Dangerous ideas, sinister forces
• » Secret sale of UK plutonium put nuclear weapons in hands of middle east government

Related Entries

The scene: Our pavement-covered front yard at dawn...Palestine Times: Free for three months...Statement from the Royal Court Theatre...Seattle Times op-ed: Putting an American face on Palestinian aspirations...What I’ve been thinking, but said much more succinctly...