January 12, 2001

VIEW FROM OTHER SIDE EDIFYING, DISCOURAGING

Have you been following the news story about the weapons ship intercepted by the Israeli Navy? If so, I think you'd find it illuminating to follow the same story as it's presented to Arabic-speaking audiences.

Here's what al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite network, had to say about the freighter Karine A. The translation is by Ahmed Ahmed of Boston station WBUR, at wburg.org.

The Jan. 4 story describes the ``massive arms cargo,'' 50 tons of weapons including ``anti-tank (missiles) of the type used by Hezbollah with telling effect against Israeli forces in Lebanon.''

It continues, ``In a potential armed confrontation with Israel, such weapons could have swung the balance completely. While the guided missiles would have prevented Israeli tanks and aircraft from operating as freely as they have been doing inside Palestinian territory, the long-range `Katyushas' would have placed Israeli town and city dwellers under the same threat of bombardment felt by their Palestinian counterparts.''

The writer evidently regards that prospect with approval, and moreover expects his readers feel the same.

Not that the analysis is entirely incorrect. If the weapons had been unloaded in Palestinian territory, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Associated Press, they ``would have been put to the worst kind of use against Israel and others in the region.''

Al-Jazeera reported Israel's accusations that the weapons shipment was organized by the Palestine Authority and directed by President Yasser Arafat, but said the accusations had ``little credence'' and seemed to be intended to discredit Arafat ``at a time when the cease-fire ordered by the Palestinian leader has brought back American pressure on Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory and resume the peace process.''

That's not exactly how it looks from here, is it? State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told The New York Times that the evidence clearly indicated that Palestinians were involved, and that the burden was on Arafat to provide a full explanation, though he did not claim that Arafat was responsible.

As evidence that the Karine A was not linked to the Palestine Authority al-Jazeera reminded its readers that the last time Israel intercepted an arms ship bound for Gaza, in May, it turned out that the ship was sent by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Since the Popular Front operates publicly in the Palestinian territories, that falls somewhere short of reassuring.

Al-Jazeera is often called ``the CNN of the Arab world,'' and compared with the official government press, it is. In a follow-up story Jan. 10, it acknowledged Boucher's comments, and also reported material from the Jerusalem Post and Israel radio regarding Iran's involvement in the arms shipment.

In contrast readers of the official Web site of the Palestinian National Authority, pna.net, would scarcely know there was a ship at all, or that if there were, it was somehow conjured up by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sabotage the peace process.

The authority's Jan. 9 press release reported it had accused Sharon ``of trying to sabotage the relationship between the PNA and the United States through his persistency in throwing accusations against the PNA regarding the weapons ship issue.''

According to Ahmad Abdel Rahman, secretary-general of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Sharon had said that Iran is considered a center for international terrorism, and the link between Iran and the PNA is Hezbollah.

``Reality refutes such logic,'' Abdel Rahman said. On what grounds? The authority approves the peace process and Iran and Hezbollah do not.

Abdel Rahman's argument reveals both a different perception of reality and a different understanding of logic. But he must believe his arguments are persuasive to somebody, or else why would he make them?

There are other windows into the Arab world. One Web site, http: / / english.ajeeb.com, offers Arabic-to-English translations, if you can make it work: its software is finicky about browsers.

Ask yourself, as you read, ``What must the writer believe, in order to write what he did? What does he think his readers believe?''

It's illuminating, all right. But it's not encouraging.

(671 words)