Next step, the Jerusalem Post writer, Margot Dudkevitch, who I phoned on Tuesday 5 August. Where did she pick up this information about the leaflet being left at least in the general vicinity of the Red Cross offices? When I tracked her down - an unexpectedly pleasant woman, by the way - I asked where the information came from, as her first byline had only said "and news agencies" (right).
It became clear that this phrase means the journalist "got it from the IBA news on the TV" on the night of the bombing. In fact it seems that everyone got it from the TV, including Associated Press and others, and it took the Ramallah Red Cross office almost a week to correct the mistake.
I phoned Israel TV and was eventually put in contact with Yoram Cohen in the news department, the person supposedly responsible for the IBA news broadcast on Wednesday night. Where did you get the information about the Red Cross from, I asked?
The leaflet was faxed to us by Reuters. We are not the source of this. Reuters had it first.
This still didn't address the Red Cross connection. I rang Reuters. Disconcertingly funky jazz music played in the background while I was put on hold. I got Daniel Sternoff, who told me:
We got [the leaflet] over the fax. We don't know who sent it, whether one of our correspondents or whoever. We were just writing it up after it arrived when I heard on Israeli television that it had been found in Ramallah. It was awkwardly and almost sloppily written on a typewriter, it could have been a computer but it looked like a typewriter. There was no official letterhead. Today, we got another leaflet with a letterhead that was from Izzadin Qassam [the Hamas military wing] promising a wave of attacks. I've seen leaflets from Izzadin Qassam before and it looked like the real thing. It mentioned the Sunday deadline had passed, like the first leaflet did, and mocked the Israelis' inability to find any information about the perpetrators of the first bomb.
So Reuters didn't report the leaflet as having turned up outside/at the Red Cross office in Ramallah?
There was no reason to. We had a copy of it faxed to us directly.
This made sense. Sternoff also said there was no distinguishing fax header on the leaflet. Back to Yoram Cohen. I explain to him that although I understand the leaflet was faxed by Reuters, where did the Red Cross information come from? He now tells me that he was actually on the scene reporting live that night - poor guy - and that another IBA staffer in the studio, Ehud Yarawi, had come up with this.
Cohen has clearly got the leaflet on his desk by now and suddenly tells me that something about the Red Cross was actually written on the leaflet, and that it was faxed by World Television News (WTN). Cohen closed by offering to fax me a copy of the leaflet (left).
The WTN connection is the first indication that there might have been an end to this Pandora's box. If they mistakenly reported it as having originated from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Ramallah, then we have an end.
I was surprised to see the leaflet. Not only did it say nothing about Ramallah, it said something entirely different. While I was pondering this on 6 August, Albert Aghazarian, director of Public Relations at Birzeit (right: © Yasser Darweesh) had a look at the leaflet.
Albert pointed out several things other than the lack of header that made it extremely, extremely unlikely that it was genuinely from Hamas. Apart from the general style, there were very specific things that were fishy. Hamas don't write "To whom it may concern" for example. And the best was last:
Islamic militant groups are not in the habit of addressing letters to the "ICRC JLM - Jerusalem Israel... To ISrael goverment." Grammer and spelling mistakes aside... mmm... how should I put this? Frankly, Islamic militants don't see "Jerusalem" as part of "Israel".
Unfortunately, Israeli TV producer Ehud Yarawi is out of the country and won't be back for a month or so. So, the story ends. I have only one question left for him. If this indeed was the leaflet they received, the writing on it clearly says "ICRC Jerusalem". Where did the Ramallah link come from? WTN's fax very clearly says "Jerusalem" not Ramallah.
Not wanting to dive to much in to the potential realms of conspiracy theory, let me just conclude by saying that government-owned Israeli TV seems to have misreported the facts. Why? An honest mistake? Or for political reasons? The difference is Palestinian-controlled versus Israeli-controlled area, the former an assumed fact that was lept upon with a vengance stronger than lust.
What was made very clear from all of this chasing around is how much the media seems to feed off itself without any real concept of where the information it spews out has come from originally.
Why was all this important? Simply because the leaflet itself has since been declared suspect as an official Hamas leaflet by both Israeli and Palestinian security services in the days following the bombing and subsequent closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Israelis, despite the bombers' faces having survived the explosion, have been unable to identify them. They have been playing on TV for days without any positive ID from any source. The prevailing Israeli view is becoming that it was a Hizbullah attack by infiltrators from Lebanon.
For which all the Palestinians are being punished.
Neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad - the only two groups who have in the past used suicide attacks as a weapon here - claimed responsibility, which is simply not their style. Martyrdom in an attack against "the Jewish oppressors", one of whose number only last month distributed the infamous "Mohammed as a pig" poster in Hebron, is something that they are proud of. Videos of the bombers usually appear in a few days, displaying the explosives they are about to use. The lack of this renders the whole Hamas or Jihad link as suspect.
If the leaflet is false, which was not even hinted at initially, the media then bears a responsibility for not pointing this out later. Is it really necessary for every member of the public to have to personally ring Daniel Sternoff at Reuters to get hold of rather vital information about the leaflet's authenticity?
The only evidence to back up the veracity of the original "awkwardly and almost sloppily written" leaflet is the newer, more reliable leaflet that refers to the same deadline.
Now, it could be that Izzidin Al-Qassam are just trying to play with everyone's heads on this one, or it could be that they are capitalising on the fact that no one on the Israeli side knows what's going on, which is always unsettling for people who mistakenly believe that the Palestinians can be controlled by force.
Or it could be a hoax, no hint of which reached the public for those two or three important days when the closure was increasingly being applied. Now, six days later, it is theoretically much harder for Netanyahu to resist the pressure of his right wing and lift the closure, even if he applied it in mistake. Not that 'mistake' seems to be the right word, judging by the delight with which he trashed Arafat and then publicised it:
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jerusalem, 30 July 1997
PM NETANYAHU SPEAKS WITH PA CHAIRMAN ARAFAT
(Communicated by Prime Minister's Media Advisor)
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasser Arafat telephoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday), 30.7.97, at 14:15, wishing to express his condolences in the wake of the attack in Jerusalem.
Prime Minister Netanyahu told Chairman Arafat that condolences were not enough and that aggressive action must be taken against terrorism.
Chairman Arafat said that he agreed with the Prime Minister and that he would act in that spirit.
Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he would not be satisfied with this. In a difficult and pointed conversation, the Prime Minister told Chairman Arafat that he had recently reiterated his warnings to him about both the need for the PA to take urgent action against the terrorist organizations, and the need for full cooperation between the security services in the war on terrorism, as Arafat has committed himself to.
"The exact opposite has occurred", the Prime Minister said. "You have encouraged the violence and incitement, you have not arrested Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, and you have not fought the terrorist infrastructure. Worse than this, senior elements in the Palestinian police have been involved in terrorist acts." Prime Minister Netanyahu added: "I demand that you take immediate action against the terror organizations. I am not prepared to be satisfied with expressions of regret. You have to completely change what you are saying and doing. You must change your your [sic] policy 180 degrees."
"Israel", said the Prime Minister, "will not accept murderous attacks against its citizens, and will not ignore such acts."
The bombing, whose scythe is reaping a huge arc across this side of the Green Line, took place in Jerusalem, fully under Israeli control. It is absolutely clear at this time that there is no evidence that the bombers came from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. This is not normal. It is suspect. But it is useful for Israel.
It reminds me of the time last year where Israeli radio falsely accused a suicide bombing on a Birzeit University student. No such student existed. The tone of the official university press release said it all.
And even assuming the bombers do originate from the 'A' areas under Palestinian control - which of course is possible - the Palestinian Authority, whose "authority" extends to only three percent of the land area of the West Bank in which 95 percent of the population live, are having their arm twisted through collective punishment to achieve a level of 'security' that the Israelis were unable to do in over 30 years of direct occupation of the whole area. The Palestinian Authority's website opens this issue up well.
Assuming it is all a mistake is actually a little too kind. The increasing doubts did not result in the lifting of the closure. This bombing was actually very convenient and good timing for the Israeli government. If they can pin it on a Palestinian source, this allows them to push for the final status talks with no fear of any Palestinian bargaining power.
Israel's right-wing Likud government is dying for the final status talks. It'll get the Oslo mess over and done with little changes to the acceptable minimum - the current "people rule not land rule" - the 3 percent geographical status quo.
Maybe it was even more sinister than any of this. Albert and a significant number of other Palestinians believe that there is a strong possibility the Israeli right did the deed themselves. My tendency is to avoid these kinds of conclusions, especially when I am tired, unless of course I saw it with my own eyes. However, listening to the Real Audio format interview with Albert might change your mind.