THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE SLIMES SHARON

The Atlantic Defames Sharon (HonestReporting)
The May 2005 edition of The Atlantic Monthly contains a lead article, 'Will Israel Live to 100?', that questions the viability of the Jewish state over the next few decades. Author Benjamin Schwartz, doubtful for any reconciliation between Israel and her Arab neighbors, feeds his cynical piece with a series of distortions and half-truths, reaching the conclusion that it's 'inevitable' that Palestinian 'expansionist energies will be directed to Israel' and possibly swallow Israel whole, peace deal or not.

Schwartz can be forgiven his doom-and-gloom tone, but the article also dredges up the oft-repeated, outright lie that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in Schwartz's words, 'connived in the massacre of Palestinian refugees'. The reference (delivered prominently ― in the article's second sentence) is to the 1982 murder of Lebanese Palestinians by Lebanese Christian militiamen in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla. The IDF, under Sharon's command, controlled the region at that time. The term used in the article ― 'connived' ― implies willful intent on Sharon's part.

But in fact, a 1983 official Israeli inquiry (the Kahan Commission) determined that Sharon was not directly at fault for Sabra and Shatilla. Rather, the commission found Sharon negligent for merely 'having disregarded the danger' posed by the vengeful Christian Phalangists.

The falsehood that Sharon 'massacred' Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla is common fare in Arab propaganda, but it made its way into major American publications as well, even before The Atlantic. In 1985, a New York jury found that Time Magazine had defamed Sharon when Time made similar allegations that 1) Sharon had known in advance that the Phalangists would carry out a massacre, and 2) Sharon had granted the gunmen permission to do so. Though the jury found no 'willful malice' on Time's part, Time was forced to run a retraction.

Comments to The Atlantic Monthly: click here

Further points on the Atlantic Monthly article 'Will Israel Live to 100?' :

* Says Schwartz, 'Even assuming that a comprehensive settlement could be reached, Israel's long-term prospects are bleak.' How's that for cynical? Is there any doubt that a country that's weathered everything Israel has for the past 55 years, and managed to forge a 'comprehensive settlement', would figure out how to handle the demographic issue?

* Schwartz repeatedly refers to the conflict as a longstanding 'Palestinian - Zionist contest (or conflict)'. A far more accurate term is 'Arab-Israeli conflict', for there was no meaningful 'Palestinian' identity until the late 60's. Moreover, Schwartz refers even to Arab Israelis as 'Palestinians', despite the fact that most Arab Israelis would not define themselves that way.

* Schwartz suggests that the motivation for Sharon's disengagement plan was his 'fearing that more and more Palestinians believe time is on their side, and that they will thus be tempted by the 'one-state solution.' Actually, Sharon has repeatedly stated that his plan is motivated by security concerns, and it was bourne of the lack of a Palestinian peace partner.

* What is the basis for Schwartz's claim that until 1967, Arab Israelis lived 'under military rule'?

* What 'territory', 'existing peace plans', and 'cantons' does Schwartz refer to here?:

Sharon's unilateral efforts at disengagement—which would have preserved more Jewish settlements and granted the Palestinians less territory than do existing peace plans, and which would have created a separate but hardly sovereign Palestinian entity composed of detached cantons—have spurred Abbas to enter negotiations.

Sharon's plan does not detail what territory Palestinians receive in a final settlement. It focuses only on Gaza and four Israeli communities in the northern West Bank.