In a letter to National Public Radio, the Anti-Defamation League expressed disappointment with the recent seven-part series, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict. While the series did include some excellent segments, particularly the program on the 1967 Six-Day War, ADL noted endemic problems that would lead listeners to develop serious misperceptions about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Attached is an ADL critique of the NPR series, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict.

1. Imbalance in Discussion of Israeli/Palestinian Policy on Negotiations: It is implied at a number of points in the series that the Palestinians were ready to accept the existence of the State of Israel many decades ago, and that Palestinians, including the PLO, were fighting for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that would exist alongside Israel, rather than the eradication of the Jewish state. This implication is highly misleading. Moreover, on a number of instances, commentators or the narrator imply that Israel resisted opportunities for peace. The impression is left with the listener of Israeli intransigence to negotiations and peace, and a Palestinian/Arab willingness to accept Israel's existence and seek reconciliation.

For example, in Part 5, while not stated explicitly, the program implies that Israeli leaders responded to Arab peace overtures grudgingly. Golda Meir rejects Sadat's overture in 1971 because "she wanted a full-blown peace treaty" thus presenting her in a negative light. Similarly, Menachem Begin only agreed to negotiate with Sadat "under pressure from President Jimmy Carter." The implication is that Arab leaders were ready for peace, and Israel was resistant. There is no mention that Sadat's approach at this time represented the first public willingness by an Arab leader to recognize Israel's right to exist and that this elicited a positive Israeli response.

Meanwhile, in the same program, the Palestinians are depicted as changing strategy. Citing Yezid Sayigh, reporter Mike Schuster says that after 1973, "the Palestinians "implicitly abandoning the goal of destroying the State of Israel." Schuster then continues, "But the Israelis still would not acknowledge the Palestinians as a political force." Not only is Sayigh's statement highly contestable, but again, the implication is that Israel is turning its back on opportunities for peace.

In Part 6, in describing the backchannel negotiations in Oslo, it is the Israelis again who have shifted the approach and have agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians. The misleading implication is that the Palestinians had been ready and willing all along, but were simply awaiting Israel's agreement. There is no indication that the Palestinians and the PLO changed their approach regarding Israel's right to exist and condemning terrorism. (Of course, according to the series, this decision had already been made in 1973!)

In Part 5 and 6, the collapse of Oslo is linked to the assassination of Rabin, again, presenting Israel as the only actor with changing opinions/policies. There is a strong implication in a comment by William Quandt that Rabin was ready to agree to a draft final status agreement but was assassinated before he could do so. There is an insufficient discussion of Palestinian policy, Palestinian terrorism and Palestinian violations of the agreements.

2. Imbalance in Discussion of Terrorism: Curiously, throughout the series, while Palestinian violence, suicide attacks and "guerilla operations" are mentioned, there is no detailed discussion of a particular attack, be it by the PLO during the height of their terrorist operations in the 1960's or 1970's, or even the heinous terrorism by Hamas and Islamic Jihad of the past decade. In Parts 4 and 5, the PLO is discussed in solely political terms. Attacks are mentioned in general, and no number or statistic is given of the number of victims of these terrorist attacks. Indeed, only two terrorist attacks are discussed in detail, both involving Jewish extremists: including a very long discussion of the Irgun attack on the King David hotel in Part 3, with the number of victims clearly noted; and a shorter, yet specific mention of the Rabin assassination.

3. Discussion of Key Issues are Incomplete: There are a number of key omissions that will leave listeners to the program with a flawed understanding of the Palestinian refugee issue, the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David, and other issues.

Refugees: While the situation leading to the Palestinian refugee situation is amply discussed, there are serious omissions. Program 3 concludes with a shockingly simplistic comment by Mike Schuster: "The Palestinians fled to refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and what is now known as the West Bank. Thousands with their children and grandchildren live in those camps until now. And from those camps would spring the Palestinian movement - the guerilla fighters and bomb makers and political leaders - who would continue to fight Israel and challenge its right to exist, down to this day." There is no mention of the refusal of Arab governments to absorb or assist this population, and the manipulation of the fate of the refugees by these governments and Palestinian leadership.

It should also be noted that while there is a very comprehensive discussion about Palestinian refugees, there is absolutely no mention of Jewish refugees from Arab lands during this same period, the hardships they endured and their absorption into Israel and the West.

The issue of the refugees comes up again in Part 7 in the discussion about the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David. Both Edward Said and Anita Shapira comment that the "right of return" was a big issue. However, these comments are never expanded on, leaving this very complex issue unexamined, and never giving Israel's position on the refugee issue and the right of return.

Camp David: The discussion of Camp David is deeply flawed. Shuster's states: "Barak made an offer that many consider Israel's best ever, but when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons, surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away." There is no mention of the specifics of Barak's generous offer - 95% of West Bank, uprooting of settlements - thus seriously downplaying the significance and scope of his proposal. The report should have noted that Clinton himself was supportive of Barak's offer. Overall, the impression is left that the Palestinians were justified in rejecting the offer at Camp David.

Palestinian Violence: The segment introducing the current Palestinian violence begins with discussion of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount which is presented as the trigger of Palestinian violence. There is no mention of documents/statements that indicate that this was preplanned by Palestinians, nor of Palestinian incitement to violence after the Sharon visit.

After briefly mentioning ongoing violence and the Israeli response (in a manner which seemingly equated the two "escalations"), and the election of Sharon as Prime Minister, Shuster states: "Sharon launched a full-scale invasion of the Palestinian territories" in March" ending the narration of events. This superficial telling of recent events omits the Passover eve bombing which led to the Israeli operation in the West Bank.