'A danger to Israeli democracy'?
In an editorial in Sunday's editions, the Washington Post blasts a bill proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) which would force disclosure of foreign government funding of Israeli NGO's.
The proposed law, introduced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, was
approved by a cabinet committee Dec. 27 and sent to the Knesset, where
it faces additional debate and votes. It would apply to those
organizations that receive more than half their funding from “foreign government entities.”
The groups would be required to identify themselves as principally
funded from overseas in any public communications and in interactions
with government officials, and they would have to list the sources of
funding in reports. Members of the groups would also be required to wear
a special badge when present in the Knesset, with their name and the
name of the NGO. This is now a requirement of lobbyists. Violations could result in stiff fines.
Apparently the Post has never heard of a US law called the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This was lifted from a Facebook page.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a
disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign
principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic
public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as
well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those
activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates
evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements
and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign
agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export
Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is
responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Most of the groups that would be forced to register in Israel are Leftist groups which are funded by foreign governments. The Post itself notes that most Rightist groups will not be affected because their foreign funding comes mostly from individuals.
The Post blinds itself to the difference between the pernicious influence of a foreign government which acts out of its own self-interest and those of an individual who in any event is unlikely to be an actor in foreign relations. Hopefully Israel's Knesset will be smart enough to ignore the Post and see the difference - just like Congress did nearly 80 years ago.
The bill is definitely not a danger to Israeli democracy.
Labels: Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Knesset, NGO funding, NGO's, Washington Post
Cruz's revenge
Too good not to note....
Heh.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Ted Cruz, Washington Post
After the murders: One US mainstream media outlet publishes Charlie Hebdo cartoon, others refuse
One US mainstream media outlet - the Washington Post - decided that it was important to show its readers why 12 people were murdered in Paris on Wednesday. The rest of the US mainstream media is either afraid or too politically correct to
publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
But many mainstream U.S. media feel otherwise: The Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC News and others
have all shunned the images under one rationale or another. The New
York Times has an expansive explanation: “Under Times standards, we do
not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to
offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times
editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give
readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.” That’s from
an official statement provided to the Erik Wemple Blog. Newer media
outlets like Gawker, the Daily Beast and BuzzFeed have published the
images.
Meanwhile, USA Today has decided to publish an op-ed from British Islamist Anjem Choudary, which claims that the terror attack is France's fault for
not shutting down Charlie Hebdo. That will score them brownie points with Islamic State.
By the way, the New York Times' reaction is particularly mealy-mouthed. How many times have they printed things that are
offensive to
Jews and/or Christians and claimed they were just giving someone a forum?
Still wondering why the West is threatened by Islamist terrorism?
Labels: Charlie Hebdo, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, New York Times, Washington Post
Pigs fly: WaPo calls Judea and Samaria 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' territory
There's no room for the picture of a flying pig in this post, so you will have to imagine one.
Oh my....
Labels: Jackson Diehl, Judea and Samaria, occupation, UN Security Council Resolution 242, Washington Post
And another thing David Ignatius doesn't get
In the previous post, I linked
this piece by David Ignatius in the Washington Post. It's a piece that's wrong in many, many ways. But here's one key point that Ignatius doesn't understand.
Netanyahu faces a real leadership dilemma. He has prevailed over Hamas
and its tunnels in Gaza, albeit at a terrible cost to Palestinian
civilians. But his popularity at home is dropping, with his approval
ratings down 20 points from their peak of 82 percent
when he ordered the ground invasion. Though Netanyahu may not realize
it, he needs Kerry’s diplomatic help to consolidate the gains of the
war. The question is whether the Israeli leader has the boldness to
leverage his military success in a way that brings greater lasting
security for Israelis, and reduces the Palestinian suffering in Gaza.
Netanyahu's ratings have dropped precisely because he stopped the war rather than stand up to Kerry.
Overwhelming majorities of Israelis
wanted to see Hamas destroyed. They are disappointed in the war's outcome because Netanyahu didn't go far enough. The last person who can 'help' him deal with that as Kerry, who is seen here as something between a buffoon and a villain.
Ignatius is still a shill for the Obama administration. Unlike his colleague,
Jackson Diehl, Ignatius has never taken a hard look at why the 'peace process' has failed. He continues to spout the Obama party line. That may serve him well in terms of access to the administration, but it doesn't serve the critically thinking readers of the Washington Post well at all.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, David Ignatius, Jackson Diehl, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Operation Protective Edge, Washington Post
Washington Post publishes cartoon of Netanyahu punching infant
This reminds me of the infamous cartoon of Ariel Sharon
eating babies.
The Washington Post has published a cartoon of Prime Minister Netanyahu punching an infant in the face. The cartoon is supposedly meant to show that both sides are equally to blame for the current fighting - a lie on its face.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
American Jewish organizations are
understandably outraged.
The caricature is aimed at apportioning blame equally between Israel and
Hamas for the suffering of Gazan civilians. It was created by Ann
Telnaes, one of the newspaper’s editorial cartoonists.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center declared its outrage over the cartoon. In a
statement released to news agencies on Friday, the center’s associate
dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, said the clip was “disgusting.”
"It is disgusting that The Washington Post would present an
animated cartoon that is so profoundly removed from the truth," said
Cooper. "Millions of Israeli citizens—men, women, and children—have been
forced into bomb shelters and saferooms by thousands of missiles and
rockets targeted at them by Hamas terrorists, whose open and avowed goal
is the destruction of the Jewish state."
“Even Israel's enemies have recognized that Israel's military
countermeasures against Hamas have included phone and text warnings as
well as leaflets urging innocent civilians in Gaza to vacate the
targeted areas," Cooper said. "It is the Hamas leadership that openly
uses the people of Gaza to act as human shields to protect their weapons
of mass destruction."
"Israelis are saddened by the deaths of four Palestinian children on a
Gaza beach yesterday, but the blood of these innocent children is on the
hands of Hamas leaders, not Binyamin Netanyahu," Rabbi Cooper also
said.
It is indeed disgusting.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu, Leftist anti-Semitism, Operation Protective Edge, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Washington Post
WaPo editorial slams American Studies Association Israel boycott
We definitely live in interesting times. The Washington Post publishes an editorial in Monday's editions in which they
slam the American Studies Association for its boycott of Israel.
The most difficult thing to swallow about the resolution is how utterly
narrow-minded it seems. Was the resolution written on a computer
manufactured in China, one of the most repressive regimes on the planet?
Did its authors pause to consider China’s incarceration of writers and
scholars who dare to think and speak out for freedom, or the ethnic
groups in China persecuted for refusing to heel to the Beijing masters?
Did they give any thought to what’s happened lately to freedom in
Russia, won at enormous cost in a Cold War that lasted more than four
decades? Does it disturb the scholars that in today’s Russia, members of
a girl band
performing a protest against the Kremlin could be thrown into a cold
and miserable prison for two years, or that civil society organizations
are being systematically shuttered?
Have the scholars overlooked the cries for help from Cuban dissidents
bravely standing up to the Castro brothers, demanding freedoms — and
suffering beatings and arrest almost every week? Do they condone the
decision of a judge in Saudi Arabia who has just sentenced a political activist to 300 lashes and four years in prison for calling for a constitutional monarchy?
To focus a resolution on Israel and ignore these injustices is puzzling
at best. It is also fundamentally wrong. For all of its difficulties,
including the wrenching, long conflict with the Palestinians, Israel has
become a lively and durable democracy. There is more freedom to speak
one’s mind and criticize the government in front of the Knesset than
will be found in either Tiananmen Square or Red Square today — and far
more in Israeli universities than in academia elsewhere in the Middle
East.
Indeed.
Labels: academic boycott, BDS, boycott Israel, liberal academia, Washington Post
WaPo belittles the Jews of Hebron
Leo Rennert takes the Washington Post to task for
belittling the Jews of Hebron.
The Post's correspondents then proceed to opine
that Hebron is among "Jewish settlements in the West Bank that are
considered by Palestinians and much of the world to be illegal under
international law." In other worlds, Jews don't belong in Hebron. Out
with Jews -- they have no business settling and living in Hebron
("Troops deaths put strain on Mideast peace talks," page A7, Sept. 23).
Unfortunately,
this description of the Jewish presence in Hebron leaves much to be
desired. There's far more to Hebron's history and religious importance.
So let's fill in the empty blanks left by the Post:
- Hebron is one of Judaism's four holy cities. The other three are Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias.
- Hebron is also the oldest Jewish community in the world.
-
While the article acknowledges Abraham's purchase of the Cave of
Machpelah, it fails to point out that this is the burial site of the
Jewish patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the matriarchs Sarah,
Rebecca, and Leah. In contrast, Muslims can claim only a single tie to
the Tomb: Abraham. After Abraham, the generational family tree divides
between the next Jewish patriarch, Isaac, and the separate forbear,
Ismael, who is not Jewish and not buried in Hebron. Jews have much
greater biblical claims to Hebron than Muslims. By a margin of 6 to 1.
Giving them equal status with Jews doesn't tally with the Book of
Genesis.
- Hebron's Jewish renown also includes the crowning of King David and his seven-year reign in Hebron before moving to Jerusalem.
- Jews lived in Hebron almost continuously for a thousand years throughout the Byzantine, Arab, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.
- Only in 1929, when an Arab pogrom murdered 67 Jews, did Hebron become Judenrein, but even then for only a relatively short period.
Isn't it astounding how the foreign mainstream media manages to ignore anything that happened before 1948? I wonder where they got that idea.
Labels: 1929 Hebron massacre, anti-Israel media bias, Hebron, mainstream media, War of Independence, Washington Post
Moral relativism at the Washington Post
I don't know how many of you saw the front page of Monday's Washington Post, but here's some of the
moral relativism that's typical of news coverage of 'Palestinian' terror.
The list of prisoners who may be released in coming days includes
militants who threw firebombs, in one case at a bus carrying children;
stabbed and shot civilians, including women, elderly Jews and suspected
Palestinian collaborators; and ambushed and killed border guards, police
officers, security agents and soldiers. All of them have been in prison
for at least two decades; some were serving life sentences.
The
Israeli public views these prisoners as terrorists who have blood on
their hands. Palestinians see them as freedom fighters struggling to
reclaim their homeland and oust the occupiers. Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas and his leadership refused to return to the
negotiating table without their release.
Two equally valid viewpoints, no? I wonder if WaPo would publish a description of the 9/11 hijackers who crashed a plane into the Pentagon as "freedom fighters struggling to spread Islam all over the world." Would they use the morally neutral term 'militants' to describe them?
I suppose maybe they would.
More
here.
Labels: 9/11, moral relativism, Palestinian terrorists, Washington Post
Who gave the IRS the idea of going after pro-Israel groups?
Eugene Kontorovich asks some important questions about
IRS scrutiny of pro-Israel groups.
One major question raised by the IRS scandal is where these ideas
came from. At least as far as Jewish groups go, the IRS scrutiny is not a
fluke. That is not to suggest it was ordered by the White House – that
is highly unlikely. At the same time, it certainly does not come out of
the blue. The past several years have seen a concerted campaign in the
mainstream liberal press to bring the IRS down upon certain pro-Israel
groups, particularly those that support activities in the West Bank (or
the Territories Formerly Occupied By Jordan).
For example, in 2009 David Ignatius had a story in the Washington Post, A Tax Break Fuels Middle East Friction.
“Critics of Israeli settlements question why American taxpayers are
supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that
the government condemns,” he wrote. The Guardian in 2009 also had a piece calling for IRS action.
In 2010, the New York Times continued the theme
with a massive, expose-style front page story, which concluded that
while such tax breaks do not seem to be exactly illegal, it creates :a
surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the
four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state
in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements
through tax breaks on donations to support them.” The article then tried
to raise questions about whether such groups really satisfied U.S.
tax-deductible requirements, suggesting the IRS should look into them.
The activities the supported, the Times article suggests, were illegal
and extremist.
Picking up the gauntlet, J Street called on the IRS to “probe” groups that support settlements, despite there being no apparent violation of tax laws involved.
And last year, an op-ed in the Times
by Peter Beinart argued that “we should push to end Internal Revenue
Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to
settler charities.”
This is just a sampling: the notion that right wing Jewish groups
should be “probed” by the IRS because they do not line up with President
Obama’s (former?) absolutist anti-settlement policy is not a new one.
All the organs of intelligent opinion agreed that some generally right
wing Jewish groups need to be dealt with by the IRS because they
contradict government policy, not because of any evidence of tax fraud.
And surely IRS bosses read the Post and the Times; it may even be their
“absolute truth” as Times editor Jill Abramson memorably put it.
Hmmm. Definitely not a coincidence.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Internal Revenue Service, J Street, New York Times, Washington Post
What a real reporter would do
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, March 12.
Mendacious Max Beyond Iron Dome
Max Fisher, the blogger for the Washington Post who publicized the
picture of Jihad Mishrawi has now responded to a new United Nations
report that concluded that the rocket that killed Mishrawi's son was
likely fired by Hamas. Originally he was reticent to follow up with the
new information available.
.@max_fisher A real reporter would ask the UN. Oh, wait: one did .freebeacon.com/u-n-hamas-rock… MT "not sure UN report is talking about Mishrawi"
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 11, 2013
Unfortunately, Fisher's followup is full of evasions. In United Nations report suggests Hamas may have killed Palestinian infant Omar Mishrawi, Fisher writes:
But it turns out that, according to a new United Nations
draft report from the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
the explosive that killed Omar Mishrawi may have actually been fired by
the Gaza-based militant group Hamas, which has a reputation for missing.
Though the initial report was less than clear on the matter (more on
this below), the Associated Press now reports that a representative from
the UN says the explosion “appeared to be attributable to a Palestinian
rocket.” If true, this would be a significant shift in our
understanding of Mishrawi’s death, which became a symbol of that month’s
conflict.
I returned from vacation this morning with more than a few reader notes
alerting me to the UN report and asking me to append my earlier post. I
held off because the draft report was a bit sketchy, as draft reports
can sometimes be. It does not name Mishrawi or his family, stating only,
“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old
adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian
rocket that fell short of Israel.” That’s the right time and location,
but the wrong family relationship: Omar’s aunt, not his mother, was
killed in the strike. While it was reasonable to wonder if this might
still refer to the strike that killed Mishrawi, this single sentence was
far from conclusive. The citation, which reads only “Case monitored by
OHCHR,” didn’t offer many clues.
What's wrong with this?
1) The word "suggests" in the title.
2) Hamas is called a "militant" group, not a terrorist group.
3) Fisher here is concerned with minutiae. The relationship of the woman
is one of those things that gets misreported. Initially there were
doubts that the damage to Mishrawi's house was consistent with an
Israeli missile, but that didn't lead Fisher (or anyone) to raise the
doubts then.
And of course, instead of writing "the evidence strongly suggests that
it wasn't an Israeli missile," Fisher cites the BBC's Jon Donnison:
A BBC story expresses some doubt about the UN report. The
BBC’s Jon Donnison writes, “The Israeli military made no comment at the
time of the incident but never denied carrying out the strike.
Privately, military officials briefed journalists that they had been
targeting a militant who was in the building.” Donnison adds, “The
Israeli military had reported no rockets being fired out of Gaza so soon
after the start of the conflict.”
Donnison is from the BBC, not exactly known for its objectivity
concerning Israel. Furthermore the person involved is an employee of BBC
so questions of objectivity come up. (After the death, the BBC editor
for the Middle East said, "We are all one team...")
Fisher accepts Donnison's claim about the IDF not reporting any rockets
so early in the conflict is dubious. Check the timestamps on the
following tweets.
The IDF has embarked on Operation Pillar of Defense.
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) November 14, 2012
Initial reports indicate that the Iron Dome has intercepted a number of rockets above a major Israeli city. #Gaza #PillarOfDefense
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) November 14, 2012
Within three hours the IDF had already reported a number of rockets had
been fired into Israel.
Why is this important? Fisher was initially skeptical of the UN report
because it misidentified one of the dead. Then when Jon Donnison made an
easily verified (or disproved) claim, Fisher accepted it uncritically.
This is a microcosm of the problem of Middle East reporting: claims that
blame Israel are accepted by purportedly objective journalists without
any checking, but claims that exonerate Israel are treated with the
utmost skepticism if they aren't ignored altogether.
Consider what was reported at the time, by Fisher.
An Israeli round hit Misharawi’s four-room home in Gaza
Wednesday, killing his son, according to BBC Middle East bureau chief
Paul Danahar, who arrived in Gaza earlier Thursday. Misharawi’s
sister-in-law was also killed, and his brother wounded. Misharawi told
Danahar that, when the round landed, there was no fighting in his
residential neighborhood.
“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me, saying that Misharawi is a
BBC video and photo editor. After spending a “few hours” with his
grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ”Questioned asked here is: if
Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last
month) how did Jihad’s son get killed.”
There was no fighting in the neighborhood. Israel, unlike Hamas, doesn't
target civilians. Israel, of course, makes mistakes. However the fact
that there was no fighting, means that there was no reason for Israel to
target that neighborhood. Instead the absence of fighting was used by
Fisher's interlocutors as a reason to suggest that Israel had targeted
innocents. (If they could pick out a specific terrorist, how could they
miss so badly and kill an innocent?)
Fisher was taking the BBC and Mishrawi family's attitudes and using
those attitudes to frame the story. Now he steps back and tells us:
The question of which “side” bears responsibility for
Mishrawi’s death is of course important, if at the moment not fully
known, in its own right. It’s also, in some ways, part of a larger
battler over symbolism and narrative in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
As I wrote at the time, the much-circulated photo of Mishrawi was
championed by critics of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian
territories, held up as a microcosm of what they argued was an unjust
conflict that disproportionately affected Palestinians. A small but
troubling minorities of those critics suggested the Israeli military
does not care about, or even willfully targeted, Palestinian children.
Meanwhile, some observers sympathetic to the Israeli strikes pointed
out, with what may have been prescience, that Hamas rockets often miss
and might have landed on Mishrawi’s house. They argued, as they are
again arguing today, that the media attention on the photo underscores
their suspicion that the world does not give Israel a fair shake.
Blame was an important part of his original narrative. While attributing
part of the argument to "critics of Israel's policies toward the
Palestinian territories," it appears that Fisher himself agrees with
said "critics." (He validates the general "critics" by noting "small but
troubling minorities" of that group. Of course, he quoted Paul Danahar
one of that smaller group, uncritically.)
In 2012, prior to Pillar of Defense, rockets were fired into Israel every month.
Most months it was more than ten rockets and in three of them it was
more than 100 rockets. In November (including Pillar of Defense) over
1000 rockets were fired into Israel.
When assigning blame, this was not part of Fisher's calculus. Hundreds
of thousands of Israeli civilians were under threat of attack. Many
thousands were regularly attacked and Israel refrained from any major
response.
Fisher poses as an objective observer; one above taking sides. Clearly,
the tragedies of the Middle East, to Fisher, are caused by both sides.
So one side is a liberal Western style democracy; the other is a
terrorist organization running an increasingly oppressive religious
society.
One side deliberately targets civilians; the other does its best to avoid them.
One side declares its genocidal aims; the other has made significant,
concrete concession to advance the cause of peace. (That's right Hamas
came to power after Israel disengaged from Gaza.)
One side seeks to kill the other; the other side, despite threats, attempts to keep up humanitarian aid to its enemies.
The problem with Fisher's dispassionate even-handedness is that it is
applied to a manifestly uneven situation. Rather than helping people
understand the Middle East, Fisher's efforts effectively perpetuate the
grievances that fuel the conflict.
His efforts to play down the UN report stand in contrast to the way he
hyped the story. Let me ask the question I asked yesterday again:
If it had been known for certain at the time of Omar
Mishrawi’s death that he had been killed by a Hamas rocket, would it
have been front page news?
Reading Max Fisher's belated equivocations, I can only conclude that it
was the apparent culpability of Israel that made the picture newsworthy.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, BBC, Gaza, Hamas rockets, human shields, IDF, Middle East Media Sampler, Soccer Dad, Washington Post
WaPo: It doesn't matter who killed Baby Omar
Well, of course. Now that his story on the killing of Baby Omar last November has been proven totally false, the Washington Post's Max Fisher says
it doesn't matter who killed Baby Omar.
Omar Mishrawi’s death and his photo, like so many incidents before it, are treated as a microcosm of the much larger conflict that
took his life. But, as I wrote in November when reports suggested that
an Israeli strike had killed Mishrawi, does knowing which military’s
errant round happened to have landed on this civilian home really
determine the larger narrative of one of the world’s thorniest and most
complicated conflicts? Does assigning blame for Mishrawi’s tragic death,
awful as it may be, offer us any real insight into who holds the blame
for 60 years of fighting? And is partitioning blame really going to
serve either side particularly well?
It’s difficult to see how knowing whose rocket or missile killed
Mishrawi would resolve the larger questions for which that debate is a
proxy: responsibility for continuing the long-term conflict, for
sparking the latest round of fighting in November, and for the Israeli
and Palestinian civilians who suffer as a result. But these are
notoriously thorny debates. As with so many protracted geopolitical
conflicts, neither side comes out looking as angelic or demonic as its
partisans might wish. In many ways, something as isolated as a single
photo of a wounded or killed child offers a purer, cleaner, lower-risk
way to talk about issues too messy to engage with directly. They’re a
great way to win arguments, but not necessarily to end them.
Well, yes, it does matter. Because one side - Israel - does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other - Hamas - seeks to place civilians, including children, in the line of fire in the hope of creating precisely the kind of news story that Mishrawi's death created. Fisher's and other mainstream media reporters' refusal to acknowledge that reality ensures that Israel will continue to have to fight a biased media in addition to murderous terrorists.
More
here and
here.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, BBC, Gaza, Hamas rockets, human shields, IDF, Washington Post
Hold the media accountable? On what planet?
In an earlier post, I reported that the United Nations had concluded that the child of a BBC reporter in Gaza, who was killed during Operation Pillar of Defense, had been
killed by a stray Hamas rocket, and not by Israel. Back in November, when this happened, the media (particularly the BBC and the Washington Post) rushed to blame Israel for it.
Now, there are calls from American Jewish groups for the media to be held - GULP! -
accountable for their irresponsible reporting.
Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The
Algemeiner he wasn’t surprised that the media got the story wrong, but
felt that this incident in particular was especially egregious. “We
have all become inured to the serial bashing of Israel, but this
incident borders on blood libel,” he said.
...
The ADL released this statement to The Algemeiner criticizing the
knee-jerk journalism practiced by the media covering the story:
“Israel has been a convenient target for certain international human
rights groups who reflexively cast blame on Israel whenever there is
military action involving the Palestinians. We have seen it over and
over again in the so-called Jenin ‘massacre’ in 2002, the Second
Lebanon war in 2006, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and Operation Pillar
of Defense in 2012. These groups rely primarily on reports from the
Palestinians and they are unwilling to withhold judgment until all of
the facts are known. Unfortunately, even some mainstream media outlets
publish stories based on these biased reports.”
Calling for editors to be held accountable for inaccuracies, the ADL added, When
the facts become fully known at a considerably later time and the
story is no longer ‘news’, editors still have a responsibility to
acknowledge the inaccuracies in the initial reports and they should be
called on to do so.”
“This image was not only picked up in real time by the
international media but has been used online as well,” the Wiesenthal
Center’s Rabbi Cooper also said. “That the media and pictorial editors
of major media would not run the photo with the true facts degrades
whatever credibility the BBC lays claim to when it comes to Middle East
and serves to instigate more hatred of Israel and Jews in the UK and
beyond.”
B’nai B’rith International echoed the sentiments of the ADL and Rabbi
Cooper, telling The Algemeiner: “This is, yet again, more evidence
that too much media reporting is inherently biased against Israel.
There is a pre-disposition to believe the worst about Israel which
colors reports and results in the spreading of false information.”
The statement continued: “It’s especially unfortunate since most
people will never read a correction, even in the limited cases where
news outlets actually admit to errors and bother to correct their
inaccurate reporting. Falsehoods are carried on page 1. Corrections are
buried inside the paper.”
For his part, the BBC’s Jon Donnison, who covers the West Bank and
Gaza and attributed blame to Israel at the time of the incident, offered his version of a mea culpa,
writing in an article on the BBC’s website that “‘The son of a BBC
journalist and two relatives killed in last November’s war in Gaza may
have been hit by a misfired Palestinian rocket,’ a UN agency says.’”
Donnison attempted to defend himself, writing that at the time “The
family, and human rights groups, said that the house was hit in an
Israeli attack” and that “The Israeli military made no comment at the
time of the incident but never denied carrying out the strike.”
Donnison also reported that the boy’s father dismissed the UN report
as “rubbish,” saying that Palestinian Arab terror groups would have
apologized if they were responsible.
That's funny: When was the last time the 'Palestinian' Arab terror groups apologized for killing the wrong person? For that matter, when was the last time the media apologized to Israel for a slander like this one. Remember this picture?
And here it is again - in black and white but with the caption:
More details about the picture for those who have forgotten
here.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, BBC, mainstream media, Washington Post
UN 'human rights council'(!) admits Hamas killed BBC reporter's baby son
The United Nations 'human rights council' has admitted that a 'Palestinian' child who died in a rocket explosion during Operation Pillar of Defense
died as a result of Hamas fire (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
In what has become typical of international media, The Washington Post and a BBC bureau
chief last November accused and convicted the Israel Defense Forces in a
heartrending, angry piece without verifying their information after a
fellow editor in Gaza lost his baby son in rocket fire that struck his
home.
The front page photo of an Arab stringer
for a world-class news network, clutching his dead baby son in his arms,
tears running down his cheeks, became a powerful icon of the tragedy of
the conflict.
It was used by Hamas as propaganda to blacken Israel’s name in the
media and politically in the international arena as it fought to defend
its southern population against Gaza’s missile fire.
But apparently very few questioned the source of the rocket fire – certainly not the grieving father, Jihad Misharawi, who at his son’s funeral blamed “the Jews” – nor did BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who came to Gaza to support his colleague, or The Washington Post, which printed the story, written by Max Fisher and "foreign staff", with photos, published on the front page.
...
“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me,” Fisher wrote, “saying that Misharawi is a BBC
video and photo editor. After spending a ‘few hours’ with his grieving
colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ‘Question asked here is: If Israel can
kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month), how
did Jihad’s son get killed.”
Answer: Jihad’s son was killed by Hamas, according to independent
investigators from the United Nations. He was murdered by the
journalist’s own neighbors, the very men who purport to be his biggest
protectors, who live in the surrounding buildings in the city where he
lives.
According to the advanced version of its report released by the U.N.
Human Rights Council released late last week, “On 14 November, a woman,
her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were
killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of
Israel.”
A footnote to the section says the case was personally investigated
by the U.N. OHCHR, and that investigators believe the attack emanated
from Hamas.
This story was actually reported last Thursday night by Elder of Ziyon, who has been all over it since the start.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: BBC, BBC bias, Gaza, Hamas rockets, human shields, Operation Pillar of Defense, United Nations Human Rights Council, Washington Post
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, January 7.
1) An intellectually honest editorial
Daled Amos and Israel Matzav linked to a Washington Post editorial, Overheated rhetoric on Israeli settlements:
Overall, the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 settlers in
Jerusalem and the West Bank live in areas close to Israel’s 1967
borders. Data compiled by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East
Peace show that more than 80 percent of them could be included in Israel
if the country annexed just more than 4 percent of the West Bank — less
than the 5 percent proposed by President Bill Clinton 12 years ago.
Diplomats were most concerned by Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to allow
planning and zoning — but not yet construction — in a four-mile strip of
territory known as E-1 that lies between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a
settlement with a population of more than 40,000. Palestinians claim
that Israeli annexation of the land would cut off their would-be capital
in East Jerusalem from the West Bank and block a key north-south route
between West Bank towns. Israel wants the land for similar reasons, to
prevent Ma’ale Adumim — which will almost certainly be annexed to Israel
in any peace deal — from being isolated. Both sides insist that the
other can make do with a road corridor.
This is a difficult issue that should be settled at the negotiating
table, not by fiat. But Mr. Netanyahu’s zoning approval is hardly the
“almost fatal blow” to a two-state solution that U.N. Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon described.
I won't pretend to agree with some of the criticism of Israel in the
editorial, but this is a very important point. Nothing Israel is doing
endangers the peace process.
In praising this editorial, Barry Rubin explains two ways in which the settlement blame game is wrong:
First: the day after the Israel-PLO agreement was signed in 1993,
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made it clear that Israel’s interpretation
was that it permitted continued construction on existing settlements.
The Palestinian Authority did not object, and that policy did not
prevent it from negotiating over the next seven years.
Misrepresentations — deliberately? — often make people think that Israel
is establishing new settlements or expanding the size of existing ones.
Both claims are untrue.
Second: if the Palestinian side wants an end to settlements, that should
be an incentive for reaching a peace agreement faster and thus getting
rid of all settlements on the territory of the new state of Palestine.
Notice that Israel — under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, no less —
demolished all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as, among other
things, a sign of what could be gained by a peace deal.
Yet the Palestinian side has been in no hurry to make a deal. In theory,
when it complains about settlements, the response should be: “So why
don’t you compromise for peace and get rid of them, rather than having
them become ‘larger?’”
This is important. It means that those who complain that settlements are
destroying the peace process are really the ones who are preventing
peace. They are providing cover for the Palestinians, who refuse to
negotiate in good faith with Israel. If Abbas knew that elite world
opinion thought he was the obstructionist, he might be inclined to
negotiate. Since he knows that the "settlements" excuse exists he can
drag his feet, feigning outrage and pay no price - diplomatic or
political - for his obstinacy and get Israel blamed in the bargain, he
has no incentive to negotiate.
The editorial is extraordinary for another reason. Shortly after
Binyamin Netanyahu formed a new government in 2009, The Washington Post
ran an editorial, Israel's new Government and Palestinian Statehood, that concluded:
The problem with that course is that it could deliver a fatal blow to
the two-state solution, which most Israelis recognize as the only way
to preserve a democratic Jewish state. As outgoing Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert understood, the time for that solution may be running out. It is
vital that the United States and European governments insist on Israeli
acceptance of it -- just as they have done with Palestinian governments
-- and that they publicly oppose actions that could undermine it, such
as settlement expansion. If that creates tension between the United
States and Israel in the short run, the result may be productive.
Israelis -- starting with Mr. Netanyahu -- need to get the message that
acceptance of a two-state solution has become a prerequisite for normal
relations with the United States.
Four years ago the Washington Post viewed the newly elected Prime
Minister Netanyahu the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
What's changed?
A few months later, a member of the of the editorial board (and former
Jerusalem correspondent for the paper) Jackson Diehl wrote Abbas's waiting game on peace with Israel:
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House
meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted
that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to
his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and
swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to
force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction
and publicly accept the two-state formula.
...
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it
says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent
to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush
administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East
was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism,
established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters
for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major
concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a
West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has
shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian
fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make
critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees,
while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders
of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago
they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You
have to comply with the conditions.' "
Last year, in Mahmoud Abbas's unhappy anniversary, Diehl wrote:
Abbas’s defenders will claim that Netanyahu’s right-wing government,
and the Obama administration’s inability to influence it, left him with
few options. That’s a canard. In fact, Abbas has never seriously tested
the Israeli leader. He could have done that by fully committing to the
negotiations the Obama administration tried to organize or to those
sponsored by Jordan’s King Abdullah this year. That would have forced
Netanyahu to reveal his terms for Palestinian statehood — and brought
real pressure to bear on him if they were unreasonable.
Instead, Abbas has repeatedly backed away from serious diplomacy, citing
as an excuse Israeli settlement construction in Jerusalem and the West
Bank — something that did not stop him from participating in
negotiations with previous Israeli governments. He embarked on his
unity-U.N.-intifada strategy on the premise that it would bring about
Palestinian statehood without the need for negotiations with Netanyahu.
And, not for the first time, Mahmoud Abbas succeeded only in delaying Palestinian statehood — and weakening his own cause.
I believe that Jackson Diehl was the mover behind last week's editorial,
as he was watched Mahmoud Abbas closely over the past four years. This
is the way journalism should work. opinions and reporting should be
based on observations not unsupported allegations. As the editors of the
New York Times becomes even more unhinged when discussing Israel, it's
encouraging that another important paper can discuss Israel soberly.
Postscript: On Twitter two of those to criticize the editorial were M. J. Rosenberg and Lara Friedman. Rosenberg a known anti-Zionist accused editorial page editor (and Diehl's boss) Fred Hiatt of being an "Israel firster." Friedman a leader of the supposedly pro-Israel group, Americans for Peace Now, cited anti-Zionist Matt Duss. See item #2 below.
2) Zealots, the truth and polls
Recently, a campaign to support the flagging nomination of Sen. Chuck
Hagel as Secretary of Defense began. Part of that campaign were two
op-eds in the New York Times casting opponents of Hagel as extremists.
One by longtime political correspondent James Besser asserted:
There is also a lesson here for American Jewish leaders, who
increasingly tremble in the face of a small minority of zealots, whose
vision of Israel’s future diverges from that of the majority of American
Jews and clashes with core American values of freedom and democracy.
The other by regular columnist Thomas Friedman argued:
The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more
is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth. But most U.S.
senators, policy makers and Jews prefer to stick their heads in the
sand, because confronting Israel is so unpleasant and politically
dangerous.
In different ways both argued that mainstream support for Israel is
driven by fanatics who are divorced from reality and that support for
Hagel, came from thoughtful people free from ideological blinders. It's
interesting to revisit these arguments in light of a recent poll of American views towards the Middle East. (via Daily Alert)
There continue to be stark partisan differences in Middle East
sympathies. Conservative Republicans maintain strong support for Israel
with fully 75% saying they sympathize with Israel compared with just 2%
who sympathize with the Palestinians. By contrast, liberal Democrats are
much more divided: 33% sympathize more with Israel, 22% with the
Palestinians. Independents sympathize more with Israel by a 47% to 13%
margin.
There were two other categories, but the only group that didn't have a
preference for Israel over the Palestinians by at least 3 to 1 was those
self-identified as "liberal Democrats."
Friedman and Besser comfortably fit in the liberal Democrat, the least
pro-Israel, grouping. Each, in his own way, from that perspective,
accuses the mainstream pro-Israel organizations of being out of touch
and in agreement with extremists.
I pointed this out to Barry Rubin who summarized the phenomenon like this:
Option 1: Israel is at fault for losing the Obama cult crowd
and a small but vocal increasingly left-wing sector of Americans (many
of whom aren’t that thrilled with the United States either).
Option 2: Given an increasingly left-wing ideology that’s based on
faulty assumptions and neglects the dangerous radicalism of Islamist
forces and other enemies of America, it is the dominant worldview in the
mass media, academia, and ruling circles in America that is to blame
for turning away from Israel.
Understand this well: Option 1 requires Israel to change; Option 2
requires the people voicing such complaints about Israel to change.
Well, these people don’t want to examine their assumptions and change
their views. They’d end up suffering for their support of Israel, they’d
be out of step with the mob; they might have to—shudder!—step away from
what’s popular and “in.” My goodness, they might even have to question
Obama’s brilliance and policies!
No contest.
So it’s not surprising that Option 1 wins out. Hey, do what you have to
do to avoid admitting your wrong and paying some price for telling the
truth. But don’t blame us.
When J-Street was founded, its supporters claimed that it represented
the true consensus of pro-Israel Americans. More specifically they
claimed that there needed to be an alternative to AIPAC,
which was too "right wing." Now, more than four years later, AIPAC is
still the main pro-Israel lobby and J-Street remains marginal. The
market for J-Street's pro-Israel views is rather limited.
If groups claiming to be "pro-peace" don't have much traction in the pro-Israel community, who are their allies?
This leads to another phenomenon. Last week, Haviv Rettig Gur wrote How the Hagel nomination battle became a fight over the Israel lobby. Part of Gur's argument is:
And opposition has even come from gay rights groups, including the
Human Rights Campaign. Though Hagel has apologized for comments made in
the 1990s that seemed to denigrate gays, the criticism has continued
from some quarters of the gay rights movement, especially on the right.
In the latest critique, published in a full-page ad in the New York
Times on Thursday, the pro-gay rights Republican group Log Cabin
Republicans urged supporters to “tell President Obama that Chuck Hagel
is wrong for Defense Secretary” and expressed support for “a stronger
and more inclusive Republican Party.”
Hagel’s supporters have responded vigorously to the agitation of the
Israel lobby, and in the process perhaps sought to crowd out opposition
to Hagel that can’t be as easily dismissed as illegitimate and –
Zbigniew Brzezinski said it outright – disloyal.
What's shocking isn't that there is strong support for Israel in
America, but that a significant minority of the political elite are
willing to disparage this support in such crude terms.
While Besser or Friedman might claim that they are pro-Israel or looking
out for Israel's best interests, what's undeniable is that they find
themselves closer to those who would suggest that Israel's supporters
are guilty of dual loyalty than to mainstream pro-Israel opinion. They
don't realize how far they have migrated.
Richard Baehr has related thoughts about American public opinion regarding Israel.
3) The "realist" paradox
Jackson Diehl, in an essay today, The Middle East Morass writes:
In Washington, some of the loudest calls for Obama’s reengagement
come from the “realist” foreign policy camp, populated by figures such
as former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent
Scowcroft — and former senator Chuck Hagel, whom Obama is considering
for defense secretary. These folks opposed the war in Iraq, and they
reject U.S. intervention in Syria or military action against Iran’s
nuclear program. They have been arguing for years that it is time for
the United States to recognize limits to its power.
When it comes to Israel, however, the realists assume boundless U.S.
strength. If only he chooses to do so, they argue, Obama could join with
U.S. allies or the U.N Security Council in imposing a two-state
solution on the Israelis and Palestinians, like it or not. The
supposition seems to be that a United States too weak to force Bashar
al-Assad out of Syria can compel Israel’s advanced democracy and the
leaderless Palestinians to accept compromises they have resisted for
decades.
I don't buy everything in this essay. I'm not convinced of the good
intentions of Brent Scowcroft or Zbigniew Brzezinski. However this is an
important point.
Instapundit points to a paradox in Senator Hagel's expected nomination.
Labels: American support for Israel, Chuck Hagel, E-1, East Jerusalem, Jackson Diehl, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, realists' fantasy, Soccer Dad, Washington Post
Awesome WaPo editorial: The 'settlements' aren't the problem
Okay, so the title of this post is an exaggeration, but you almost certainly would not see
words like these in the New York Times.
Twenty-five years ago, Israel’s government openly aimed at
building West Bank settlements that would block a Palestinian state. But
that policy changed following the 1993 Oslo accords. Mr. Netanyahu’s
government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely
to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial
swaps in an eventual settlement. For example, the Jerusalem
neighborhoods where new construction was announced last month were conceded to Israel by Palestinian negotiators in 2008.
Overall,
the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 settlers in Jerusalem and the
West Bank live in areas close to Israel’s 1967 borders. Data compiled
by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace show that more
than 80 percent of them could be included in Israel if the country
annexed just more than 4 percent of the West Bank — less than the 5
percent proposed by President Bill Clinton 12 years ago.
Diplomats
were most concerned by Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to allow planning and
zoning — but not yet construction — in a four-mile strip of territory
known as E-1 that lies between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a settlement
with a population of more than 40,000. Palestinians claim that Israeli
annexation of the land would cut off their would-be capital in East
Jerusalem from the West Bank and block a key north-south route between
West Bank towns. Israel wants the land for similar reasons, to prevent
Ma’ale Adumim — which will almost certainly be annexed to Israel in any
peace deal — from being isolated. Both sides insist that the other can
make do with a road corridor.
This is a difficult issue that
should be settled at the negotiating table, not by fiat. But Mr.
Netanyahu’s zoning approval is hardly the “almost fatal blow” to a
two-state solution that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described.
The
exaggerated rhetoric is offensive at a time when the Security Council
is refusing to take action to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of
civilians — including many Palestinians — by the Syrian regime. But it
is also harmful, because it puts pressure on Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas to make a “freeze” on the construction a condition for
beginning peace talks. Mr. Abbas had hinted that he would finally drop
that demand, which has prevented negotiations for most of the past four
years, after the General Assembly’s statehood vote. If Security Council
members are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood,
they will press Mr. Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for
intransigence — and cool their own overheated rhetoric.
Okay, so they still say (in the part I didn't quote) that criticism of the 'settlement construction' is appropriate. I disagree. At some point, the 'Palestinians' second and third and fourth and fifth and... chances ought to run out and we ought to be able to move ahead. But look at the bright side: They admit that it's not Israel that's killing the 'peace process.' Someone take this editorial to the White House!
Labels: E-1, East Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, Middle East peace process, Washington Post
WaPo: 'Palestinian' rocket fire like... bee stings?
This is what the Washington Post's ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, thinks a
bee sting looks like.
I think we can all agree that the Gaza rocket fire is reprehensible
and is aimed at terrorizing Israeli civilians. It’s disruptive and
traumatic. But let’s be clear: The overwhelming majority of rockets
fired from Gaza are like bee stings on the Israeli bear’s behind.
These rockets are unguided and erratic, and they carry very small
explosive payloads; they generally fall in open areas, causing little
damage and fewer injuries.
And therefore? Israelis in the affected zones can just ignore them? Not so, writes
Alana Goodman.
“Bee stings on a bear’s behind”? Maybe Pexton can explain that to the
children of Sderot, many of whom suffer traumatic stress disorders
after being dragged out of bed night after night by the sound of air
raid sirens. Or to the families of the Israelis killed by what Pexton
refers to as “unguided and erratic” Hamas rocket attacks last week. Or
to over a million Israelis forced to put their lives on hold to hide in
bomb shelters, because, as effective as Iron Dome is, it can’t block
every missile — and it just takes one.
The truth is, Hamas’s rockets don’t cause as many casualties as they
otherwise would because Israel goes to great lengths to protect its
people. It spends fortunes on bomb shelters and missile defense systems.
In contrast, Israel’s military responses cause more Palestinian
casualties than they otherwise would because Hamas goes to great lengths
to endanger its people. It shoots missiles out of hospitals and
schools, uses children as human shields, and tells Gaza civilians to ignore Israeli warning pamphlets that advise them to leave targeted neighborhoods.
Washington Post stories that give prominent coverage to
Palestinian casualties and downplay Israeli ones — and columns like
Pexton’s that compare Hamas missiles to bee stings and Israel to a bear —
play into Hamas’s strategy of endangering its own people, and ensure
that it will continue in the future.
Indeed.
Labels: rockets, Sderot, Washington Post
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, November 27.
1) Pexton supporting Hamas
After the Jayson Blair scandal the New York Times and other newspapers
introduced a "public editor." Other newspapers, such as the Washington
Post (which calls its public editor an "ombudsman") have had them for
longer. The idea behind the public editor is to have someone who outside
of the newsroom or editorial offices of the newspaper act as its
in-house critic. Presumably someone outside of the newspaper's culture
with a non-renewable contract can be a better critic of a newspaper than
someone from within.
But public editors are usually taken from the ranks of other newspapers.
While they may not be part of a given paper's culture, they are still
usually taken from newsrooms and editorial offices and are very much a
part of the journalistic culture. So rather than representing the public
in any meaningful way, they are more likely to explain to the
uninformed public why the editors and reporters have much better
judgment than their critics.
One of the worst and most partisan of these public editors is the
current ombudsman of the Washington Post, Patrick Pexton. On Sunday he
wrote, Photo of dead baby in Gaza holds part of the ‘truth’:
A photograph may be worth a thousand words, but even at its most
revealing it never tells an entire story. It is the capture of a single
moment, a split-second version of the truth. But if it is an effective
photograph, it moves the viewer toward a larger truth.
That’s certainly the case for a front-page photographp ublished Nov. 15,
an image of a man’s anguish as he held the shrouded body of his
11-month-old son, who was killed in a bomb strike on the man’s house in
Gaza.
According to the witness account, the house was not hit by a bomb, but by shrapnel.
That the man is Palestinian — not a terrorist but a journalist — and
that the bomb was dropped by Israelis, to my mind, is almost beside the
point. This photo depicted loss and pain, the horrific cost to innocents
on both sides of the violence in the Middle East.
But many Post readers saw it differently. Jewish groups and American
Jews in large numbers wrote to the ombudsman and to Post editors,
protesting the photo as biased.
Here's Pexton marginalizing the criticism. Who objects? Jews. I would
agree that the photo itself isn't biased, but without providing greater
context it is certainly misleading. Note too how Pexton slyly suggested
that an innocent man was targeted by Israel.
Post staff then authenticated and verified the facts behind the
Associated Press photo. The dead baby was real. The bombing was real.
Many readers asked why The Post didn’t balance the photo of the grieving
father with one of Israelis who had lost a loved one from the Gaza
rocket fire. That’s a valid question.
The answer is that The Post cannot publish photographs that don’t exist.
No Israeli civilian had been killed by Gaza rocket fire since Oct. 29,
2011, more than a year earlier. The first Israeli civilian deaths from
Gaza rocket fire in 2012 did not take place until Nov. 15, when Hamas,
the group that controls Gaza, began firing more accurate and deadly
missiles in response to the Israeli offensive that had begun the day
before. There were no recent photos of Israeli casualties to be had on
the night of Nov. 14.
Again, it wasn't a bombing. Pexton then misdirects his readers. For
years residents of southern Israel have been under rocket attack. Never
has the Post cared enough to focus on the fear that Israelis live with.
When Israel strikes back and there's collateral damage (though it's far from clear that Israel was responsible
for the blast that killed the baby) that's when the Post does a story.
For people not following the news from Israel, the emphasis on the dead
baby might well prompt questions as to why Israel would take an action
that would have such severe consequences.
I think we can all agree that the Gaza rocket fire is reprehensible
and is aimed at terrorizing Israeli civilians. It’s disruptive and
traumatic. But let’s be clear: The overwhelming majority of rockets
fired from Gaza are like bee stings on the Israeli bear’s behind.
These rockets are unguided and erratic, and they carry very small
explosive payloads; they generally fall in open areas, causing little
damage and fewer injuries.
In response, Petra Marquadt-Bigman wrote in the Algemeiner (h/t Ron M):
You can safely bet the ranch on it: When a Washington Post writer
dismisses thousands of rockets as not much more than “bee stings” on a
“bear’s behind,” the country that is targeted with these rockets is
Israel.
The callous dismissal of the roughly 12 000 rockets and mortars that
have been raining down on Israel’s south and its 1 million residents in
the past 12 years – yes, on average a thousand attacks a year – is all
the more outrageous when you consider that it comes from the Washington
Post’s ombudsman Patrick Pexton. Officially, Pexton “represents readers
who have concerns or complaints on topics including accuracy, fairness,
ethics and the news-gathering process. He also serves as The Post’s
internal critic and strives to promote public understanding of the
newspaper, its Web site and journalism more generally.”
With his response to criticism of a recent front page photograph showing
a grief-stricken father from Gaza holding the shrouded body of his
infant son, Pexton certainly succeeded in giving the public a glimpse of
the multiple biases that apparently guide his own work when it comes to
Israel’s efforts to defend its citizens against bombs and terrorism.
"Reprehensible," "disruptive" and "traumatic" are just words. Pexton
can't bring himself to use the word "evil." Pexton's blind eye, of
course, distracts from the larger truth. Hamas is a terrorist
organization that targets innocents. It places its rocket batteries near
civilians hoping for collateral damage. If Pexton wants a picture that
tells the truth, what about the marked aerial photographs showing how Hamas places its military assets in civilian areas?
Pexton is simply a partisan hack who has no patience for criticism of
the Washington Post's editorial process. The real problem is that Hamas
bases its operations near civilians in the hopes of collateral damage
that will distract from Hamas's terrorism. By publishing a dramatic
picture of the collateral damage and providing no context, the
Washington Post helped promote Hamas's media strategy.
2) Carr supporting Hamas
The Washington Post hasn't been as bad as the New York Times. The Times
using not only its news pages but its opinion pages too, has been
leading a campaign against Israel for years. (Pro-Israel opinion
articles are outnumbered by anti-Israel opinion articles by a ratio of
4:1.)
So I guess it was only a matter of time before the New York Times media critic would get involved. Yesterday David Carr wrote Using War as Cover to Target Journalists:
On the same day as the Waldorf event, three employees of news
organizations were killed in Gaza by Israeli missiles. Rather than
suggesting it was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli
Defense Forces spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The
Associated Press, “The targets are people who have relevance to terror
activity.”
So it has come to this: killing members of the news media can be
justified by a phrase as amorphous as “relevance to terror activity.”
...
Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV,
which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that
affiliation. They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile
struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with
the letters “TV.” (The car just in front of them was carrying a
translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit close
to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private
Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a
missile.
The problem is as Elder of Ziyon documented two of the "journalists" he cited were terrorists.
In the case of Mohamed Abu Aisha, he clearly was a uniform-wearing member of Islamic Jihad...
Islamic Jihad doesn't describe him as a journalist, but as an instructor
for the Mujahideen of Al-Quds Brigades in Deir al-Balah Battalion
Brigade.
Similarly, Hamas message boards refer to Hussam Salama as a "mujahid." That is not a word used to describe civilians.
(More on Abu Aisha here. )
The Free Beacon adds:
Yet al-Kumi and Salama were not journalists—in fact, they had
spray-painted “TV” on their car in an attempt to disguise themselves as
journalists and thereby prevent the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from
firing on them. The disguise didn’t fool anyone except for David Carr
and the New York Times. Who in fact were they?
Brian of London points out that when NATO targeted a Serbian TV station in 1999, there was no such outrage. As Mark Jacobs tweeted:
@brianoflondon "The propag machine is prolonging the war and it’s a legitimate target."Clare Short on NATO bombing RTS bit.ly/bEPkjw
Similarly Alana Goodman observed:
Should Israel be expected to let any militant who paints “TV” on his
car drive by under the radar? Samir Khan was the editor of al-Qaeda’s
Inspire magazine until he was killed in a CIA drone strike, but the New
York Times has yet to accuse the Obama administration of “using war as
cover to target journalists.” Apparently, Israel is the only country
that’s expected to treat terrorists-posing-as-reporters the same way it
treats actual reporters.
Israel Matzav, Honest Reporting and others have also critqued Carr.
How did Carr respond to the criticism? He tweeted that one crank had threatened him. He told BuzzFeed:
"I ran my column by reporters and editors at our shop familiar with
current events in the region before I printed it," Carr said. "And I
don't believe that an ID made by the IDF is dispostive or obviates what
the others said. Doesn't mean that I could not have gotten it wrong,
only that the evidence so far suggests that they were journalists,
however partisan."
First of all he makes clear that he trusts Hamas more than he trusts the
IDF. His casual "Doesn't mean that I couldn't have gotten it wrong"
belies the sensationalism of his charges. He knew his column would be
controversial; he should have made sure of his facts. (For a media
critic with access to the internet checking with reporters and editors
is awfully lazy. Elder of Ziyon and others found that Islamic Jihad and
Hamas bragged about these men.) Finally "partisan" is an odd way to
describe terrorists. The men Israel targeted were devoted to terrorizing
or killing Israelis. They were legitimate targets.
Carr, like Pexton, decided to use his forum to further Hamas's message.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, journalists, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, Operation Pillar of Defense, Soccer Dad, Washington Post
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, September 9.
1) Si vis pacem, para bellum
The Washington Post has an editorial, Bridging the U.S. Israeli gap on Iran, which concludes:
In the past week Mr. Netanyahu has hinted at how the U.S.-Israeli difference could be overcome: through a clear public statement by Mr. Obama of a willingness to take military action if Iran crosses certain “red lines” in its nuclear program. Israel has been seeking such a declaration for some time, but Mr. Obama has limited himself to saying that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a weapon and that “all options are on the table.”
Certainly there would be dangers to a more explicit presidential statement, including that the United States would start down a slippery slope toward war. But if Mr. Obama really is determined to take military action if Iran takes decisive steps toward producing a bomb, such as enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels or expelling inspectors, he would be wise to say so publicly. Doing so would improve relations with Mr. Netanyahu and deter unilateral Israeli action — and it might well convince Iran that the time has come to compromise.
The editors of the Washington Post are asking that President Obama explicitly state the American readiness to prevent a nuclear Iran. Part of the argument is to mollify Israel but more than that it's an argument that American clarity and resolve will more likely deter Iran than nebulous declarations.
But that's not the most incredible part of this editorial; the sentence immediately prior to those two paragraph is:
It also creates the bizarre spectacle of senior U.S. military and diplomatic officials focusing their time and attention on trying to prevent an Israeli attack rather than an Iranian bomb.
I've seen this sentiment expressed before; usually from pro-Israel commentators. From an activist's standpoint, the editorial position of the Washington Post is not "pro-Israel," but it recently has been fair when judging the Middle East. The fact that four years ago the Washington Post enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama and a few months later deplored the election of Binyamin Netanyahu makes this rebuke of the President even more surprising and powerful.
2) Barack Obama, Israel and the Jewish Vote
Chaim Saban wrote a recent op-ed in the New York Times, The Truth about Obama and Israel:
AS an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people, I will be voting for President Obama in November. Here’s why.
Even though he could have done a better job highlighting his friendship for Israel, there’s no denying that by every tangible measure, his support for Israel’s security and well-being has been rock solid.
Mitt Romney claims Mr. Obama has “thrown allies like Israel under the bus,” but in fact the president has taken concrete steps to make Israel more secure — a commitment he has described as “not negotiable.”
Barry Rubin - also an Israeli American, but who traveled eastward rather than westward - has written a comprehensive rebuttal to arguments similar to Saban's. I won't reprint the whole thing, but there's one paragraph that's especially important:
An especially important reason why Obama’s administration hasn’t been far more hostile to Israel in practice is that the Arabs and Iran shafted his policy. Remember that Obama offered to support the Palestinians, pressure Israel, and accelerate talks if only the Arab states and Palestinian Authority showed some flexibility. They repeatedly rejected his efforts—refusing even to talk–giving him no opportunity or incentive to press Israel for concessions. Note too, though, that the repeated humiliations handed him by the Arabs never made him criticize them publicly, change his general line, or back Israel more enthusiastically.
On the positive side, Saban's op-ed is clearly pro-Israel and I commend the New York Times for its courage in publishing it. I wish it weren't so misguided, but given the paucity of pro-Israel op-eds in the New York Times, I welcome the paper's openness in publishing a column that conflicts with its usual editorial position.
Last week the Baltimore Sun published former Governor Bob Ehrlich's Can Jewish voters be sure of Obama's commitment to Israel? I wish Ehrlich had framed the argument differently. Clearly what bothers him is the attachment of American Jews to the Democratic Party, but support for Israel is an American issue, not strictly a Jewish one.
The bulk of the column leads up to the final three paragraphs:
Forty years later, a reflexively dovish president in the midst of a difficult re-election campaign may be presented with a similar decision. Prime Minister Netanyahu has no doubt how Mr. Romney would respond. But can the same be said for America's 44th president?
An Israeli military action against Iran would set off alarm bells around the world. At least publicly, most of America's allies would condemn the actions. And a newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood would spark widespread protests throughout a tense Middle East.
The man who regularly voted "present" while a member of the Illinois legislature would not have a similar option here — a disquieting notion for Jewish Democrats concerned about the latest threat to Israel's survival.
Perhaps President Obama, as the Washington Post suggested above, could forestall a nuclear Iran and prevent the scenario described by Ehrlich. But it will require a more forceful and clearer response than we've seen so far.
3) A house in Netivot
One of Barry Rubin's criticisms of President Obama's has been how it has coddled Hamas, especially after the Mavi Marmara incident. Two years ago, he wrote a column, West Says: We've Helped Poor Gazans! Hamas Says: You've Given Us Gaza, Now on to More Wars, Seizing the West Bank, and Wiping Out Israel:
Here is what President Barack H. Obama said after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"We believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas."
Now compare this with what the leader of the regime ruling the Gaza Strip says in explaining his broad strategy. See if there is any possible intersection between reality and Obama's priority on mking the Gza Strip prosperous.
Zahhar explains the Gaza flotilla hoopla and subsequent wave of anti-Israel sentiment not as a way for getting more wheelchairs into Gaza but as the end of phase one of his plan, which in future intends to place a lot more people into wheelchairs in Gaza:
...
"If we could liberate the Negev now, we would continue [our military activity], but our capabilities dictate that after we got rid of the Israeli presence in Gaza, we must finish off the remnants of that occupation, and move on to the West Bank."
And indeed Hamas has been able to rebuild its arsenal. During 2012, Israel has been attacked by over 455 rockets from Gaza; the latest attack destroyed a house in Netivot.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Hamas rockets, Iranian nuclear threat, Middle East Media Sampler, Soccer Dad, Washington Post
