THE NYT'S LACK OF RESPECT FOR STRICKEN SHARON

No Respect for Stricken Sharon (TimesWatch)
Middle East-based Neil MacFarquhar reports on Arab attitudes toward the stricken Israeli prime minister in “To Arabs in the Street, Sharon’s a Butcher; Some Others Show a Kind of Respect,” a headline which doesn’t exactly show respect for the gravely ill Sharon.

MacFarquhar uses the opportunity to pass along pro-Palestinian spin: “Although Mr. Sharon was the architect of Israel’s settlement policy, it was he who decided to dismantle some 25 of the settlements, including all of the small but ideologically fervent outposts in the Gaza Strip that retarded peace prospects during Israel’s occupation of the strip.” [ED. DID THESE SETTLEMENTS "RETARD" PEACE PROSPECTS? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WITHDRAWAL OF THESE SETTLEMENTS HAS DONE NOTHING TO IGNITE THE PEACE PROCESS. IN FACT, WITHOUT ISRAEL'S PRESENCE IN GAZA, THE PALESTINIANS ARE TURNING GAZA INTO A TERRORIST STATE, ARMING, RADICALIZING, AND FIRING MISSLES AND ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL.]

Later he writes: “Arabs generally put Mr. Sharon at the top of the list of Israeli military leaders who treated them with violence and contempt. They point out that the violent Palestinian uprising that effectively derailed the tattered Oslo peace accords of the early 1990's erupted after Mr. Sharon, accompanied by a large police escort, conducted a highly public visit in September 2000 to the holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary.”

The Times has consistently left out ample evidence that Sharon’s visit had little to do with the intifada. As senior Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat in 2001:

“I knew that the end of September was the last period (of time) before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada....The night prior to Sharon's visit, I participated in a panel on a local television station and I seized the opportunity to call on the public to go to the al-Aqsa Mosque in the morning, for it was not possible that Sharon would reach al-Haram al-Sharif just so, and walk away peacefully. I finished and went to al-Aqsa in the morning....We tried to create clashes without success because of the differences of opinion that emerged with others in the al-Aqsa compound at the time....After Sharon left, I remained for two hours in the presence of other people, we discussed the manner of response and how it was possible to react in all the cities (bilad) and not just in Jerusalem. We contacted all (the Palestinian) factions.”

Pro-Palestinian reporter Steven Erlanger gets his hits in as well, tarring Sharon as “far right” in Friday’s off-lead story, “Sharon In Coma; New Party Faces A Crucial test.” Speaking of potential successors for the stricken Sharon, Erlanger writes about “the policy balloons, like Gaza disengagement, that Mr. Sharon later adopted as he moved from the far right toward the center.”

Erlanger is comfortable calling Sharon “far right,” yet refuses to label the anti-Israeli terrorist group Hamas. Here’s how he described them on March 13, 2005: “Hamas, the Islamic group that combines philanthropy and militancy, confirmed publicly on Saturday that it would take part in Palestinian legislative elections scheduled for July 17, ending a 10-year boycott of the Palestinian Authority."