To the Editor:

We are deeply troubled by, and have received many complaints concerning the online video essay by National Geographic photographer Christopher Anderson describing his recent assignment in Bethlehem and, specifically, his impressions of the security barrier separating Israel and the West Bank.

Mr. Anderson's repeated references to the barrier as a "prison wall" are inaccurate and distorted.  He describes the security barrier as a "prison wall running through what was before a normal neighborhood" and an "enormous 30-foot concrete wall."  Bethlehem is a West Bank city governed by the Palestinian Authority, not a prison, and was at one time a major tourist destination until the Palestinians rejected Israel's offer of peace at Camp David in 2000 and resorted to a four-year campaign of suicide terrorism.

Throughout his narration, Mr. Anderson highlights the problems with the security barrier, but he fails to mention that it was created to prevent suicide terrorists from entering Israel and has saved many Israeli lives.  His narration also makes no mention of the reasons the barrier was constructed in the first place —because Israelis were beset by terrorists espousing hate, teaching extremist philosophy, and using Bethlehem as a base for launching attacks against Israeli civilians. 

We believe it is journalistically dishonest and irresponsible for a venerated publication such as National Geographic to provide an open platform such a one-sided view of the situation on the ground in the West Bank and Israel.  Mr. Anderson is certainly entitled to his personal views, but isn't the primary objective of good journalism to present both sides of the story?

We would appreciate hearing from you on this.