Haniyeh: 'We had the global media eating out of our hands'
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh tells al-Jazeera Arabic that Hamas controlled the media narrative in Operation Protective Edge.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
It was most definitely not the case that Israelis believed Hamas' narrative over the one presented by our own media. However, unfortunately, with respect to the international media (especially in the West), he is largely correct.
The Hamas government on Tuesday banned Palestinians from dealing or working with Israeli media outlets.
The decision was announced following the weekly meeting of the Hamas government in Gaza City.
Hamas said it decided to ban dealing or working with "Zionist media outlets because they are hostile."
Hamas warned Palestinian journalists and media employees from working with or helping their Israeli counterparts.
In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority has not officially banned Palestinians from working with the Israeli media.
However, many PA officials and political figures refuse to talk to Israeli media organizations.
Maybe they should ban all foreign journalists who have contact with Israelis from having contacts with 'Palestinians.' That way the cooties wouldn't spread. Let's see how many media organizations are willing to send double staff here or send reporters to live permanently in Gaza.
The IAF strike that
hit the media building in Gaza late Monday afternoon killed four
Islamic Jihad terrorists, IDF Spokesman said.
Among them were
Baha Abu el Ata, a senior member of the military council and a Gaza
brigade commander, who was involved in firing rockets into southern
Israel, Tyseer Abu Al Ata, a senior Islamic Jihad member in charge of
the operations, Halil Bahatini, who was involved in the Islamic Jihad's
long-range rockets launching, and Ramez Hareb, a senior commander in
charge of propaganda.
Terrorists are embedded with the media, just like they're embedded with all the other civilians in Gaza.
Video: IDF destroys Hamas communication center without damaging the rest of the building
On Nov. 18, 2012, as part of Operation Pillar of Defense, the IDF
surgically targeted Hamas' operational communications capabilities on
the roof of a civilian building in the Gaza Strip. The IDF did not
target any other parts of the building.
This is the incident in which six Arab and Iranian journalists were hurt. Were they on the roof acting as human shields?
IDF Spokeswoman
Avital Leibovich on Sunday briefed foreign press about an IAF air strike
that injured six journalists in the Gaza Strip early Sunday morning,
saying "we obviously know there are journalists in the building, so we
did not attack any other floor," according to an audio recording of the
briefing.
The IDF said it was targeting a "transmission antenna
used by Hamas to carry out terror activity." Britain's Sky News and
Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV were damaged in the attack. Journalists from Al-Aqsa
TV and Iran's PressTV were injured.
Leibovich added that her
advice to journalists in Hamas-administered Gaza, is to "stay away from
any Hamas positions, Hamas sites, or Hamas posts for their own safety."
If the IDF had targeted journalists, there wouldn't be any journalists left to write about it.
Brings to mind a conversation I once had with a kibbutznik during the early, heady days of Oslo. Ruben, a thin, middle-age European immigrant with pepper-gray hair and round glasses that somehow accentuated his bursting intellect, would sometimes vent about Big Media’s fixation with Israel. But in a moment of candor, Ruben observed that it would be more painful to him if the world were indifferent to Israel. He broadly swept his hand to the right — overdramatically, I thought — as if to draw my attention to The Rest Of The World, as he emphatically told me:
“This tiny little country matters to the people out there.”
The problem isn't the disproportionate coverage of Israel; it's what constitutes that coverage. Israel has plenty of accomplishments that reporters could report on if they wanted to. The problem is that reporters and columnists see Israel as a "moral Disneyland" in Charles Krauthammer's formulation, from 24 years ago, at the beginning of the intidfada.
Israel's critics, so concerned about its soul, would have a little more credibility if they displayed equal concern for Israel's body. After all, it is that body - its right to mere existence - that has been the burning issue for 40 years now. Israelis don't crave the tears of the West's moral vacationers. They crave life. Any Arab negotiating partner who, like Sadat, fully declares that life to be an absolute given, will soon find across the table the kind of Jewish soul for which the moral nostalgics so ostentatiously pine.
So, what’s going on here? A smokescreen, I suspect. Netanyahu–who is opposed to a Palestinian state–is trying to draw attention away from illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, which continue to grow and threaten the possibility of a two-state solution. He is also playing to the minority of American Jews who support neoconservative positions, especially the notion that Iran having a bomb would be somehow different, and more threatening, than Pakistan having a bomb–the idea that Iran is run by mad mullahs, who behave irrationally.
I’ve been traveling to the Middle East as a journalist for the past 30 years. During that time, Israel has grown into an ethnically diverse, economically successful country with a strong (internal) tradition of democracy, free speech and the rule of law–a tradition not always extended toward its Palestinian neighbors, especially when Likud governments are in power. And during those same 30 years, governance on the Palestinian side has been an unrelenting disgrace–until recently, when Salam Fayyad, a U.S.-trained economist reformed the government on the West Bank and, with US help, created a tough security force that insisted on the rule of law in the Palestinian territories and was respected by the international community, including the Israelis. But Fayyad was fired in the new accord between the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas. This is terrible news. It changes everything.The success of Fayyad’s government was one reason why I was not entirely pessimistic about a two-state solution in the Middle East. Israel had always demanded, and deserved, a responsible negotiating partner. Fayyad had created conditions amenable to negotiation; the Israelis responded positively, in a limited way, shutting down checkpoints on the West Bank, but not nearly as positively as they should have–with a moratorium on new settlement construction. His firing has undermined those of us who had hoped for a more positive Israeli response to the Palestinian reforms.
Aside from his cheap shot about how Israel treats Palestinians, his praise of Israel as a society is welcome. But he overstates the importance of Fayyad. Fayyad never had a significant base of support. Over the past 30 years (actually more) Palestinian extremism has been praised and encouraged. Even Likud governments did more to promote peace with the Palestinians than "moderate" Fatah politicians - Fayyad included - did to encourage peace with Israel.
It would have been better had Klein not focused on Fayyad and noted that an agreement between Fatah and Hamas effectively rejects the Oslo Accords. Still it is something that he acknowledged the problem.
On Monday, government forces using tanks and machine guns shelled a makeshift medical clinic and residential areas in Homs, a major center of protests. Since Friday, an estimated 240 people have been killed in perhaps the bloodiest episode in the 11-month-old uprising. Moscow and Beijing now have the blood of Syria’s valiant people on their hands as well. Both argued that the resolution, endorsing an Arab League initiative, would expand the conflict. That is nonsense. The real explanation is that these two authoritarian governments fear any popular movement and, after the ouster of Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, are determined to deny the West another perceived victory.
Israel Television reports in its nightly news magazine that Qatari-based Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered one of the most important Sunni Sheikhs in the world, has issued a fatwa calling for a boycott of Russia and China over their vetoes of a UN Security Council resolution on Saturday that would have condemned Bashar al-Assad's regime. Qaradawi called Russia and China the 'enemies of the Arab people.'
4) Room for debating Assad?
A regular feature of the New York Times is "Room for Debate," in which typing heads discuss the important issues of the day. Incredibly, there is room for Life After Assad Could Be Worse by Ed Husayn.
It is impossible to tell whether Assad’s time is running out. Educated and Westernized friends of mine in Syria who once opposed Assad on political grounds and sought reform now support him because they fear the prospect of an all-out civil war between tribes, cities, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Druze, Ismailis, Catholics, Protestants and assorted Orthodox Christians. Syria is a complex nation. Containing – not fanning – the current conflict is in everybody’s interests.
But the slide into anarchy is more starkly observed in Homs City in central Syria, where for weeks loyalists have been pounding restive neighborhoods with mortars and heavy artillery. On the eve of the U.N. vote, indiscriminate bombardment killed more than 250 residents of the Khaldiyeh neighborhood. Loyalist gangs have committed cold-blooded massacres of entire families, including women and babies, in their effort to spread fear among the protesters and push them out of the city — a development that could usher in a larger-scale drive for ethnic cleansing in Homs City and a number of coastal communities, where sectarian tensions continue to rise. Despite the international outcry, Russia and China went ahead with their veto, which the regime has taken as a green light to continue its crackdown.
To the credit of the New York Times, not everyone debating is an apologist for the Assad regime, Andrew Tabler contributes A new resistance with new results:
Ultimate change is much more likely to come from below. In contrast to the situation in 1982, regime opponents aren’t cowed: their numbers are simply far too high and continue to swell. In the 10 years after the Hama massacre, Syrians stayed home out of fear, and a population boom began, making Syria among the 20 fastest-growing nations. Today it is one of the youngest populations in the Middle East. The Syrian Awakening, like so many uprisings and revolutions elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond, presents, perhaps, the best example of authoritarian regime karma. But the question remains: Will the international community stand by and do nothing, as it did in 1982? And if not, what can it do to help Syrians end the 40-plus years of the Assad family’s brutal and incompetent rule and bring about a leadership capable of dealing with the needs of the next generation?
Regarding Klein, I would add that Netanyahu did actually freeze 'settlement construction' for ten months - which no Prime Minister had done before. But Abu Mazen waited until nine of those ten months were up and then went to the negotiating table to try to get Netanyahu to extend them. Enough is enough!
Here's the Deputy Commander of Israel's Navy discussing what was found on the Victoria on Tuesday.
Let's go to the videotape.
From an initial investigation, strategic weapons were found on-board the “Victoria”–many 60 and 120 mm mortar shells, and C-704 anti-ship missiles. The C-704 shore-to-sea missiles had a range of 35 kilometers and its likely use along the Gaza Strip endangers not only infrastructure near the Gaza sea, but Israeli shore cities in close proximity such as Ashkelon.
Iran is known to possess these type of missiles, which, along with identifying documents (including a missile identification document, below) gives substantial evidence of Iran’s involvement in the weapons smuggling attempt, and yet another example of Iran’s use of innocent merchant ships as a means of transferring arms to terrorist organizations.
The IDF spokesperson reported on Tuesday night that the ship was carrying 50 tons of weapons - about the equivalent of the Karin A, which was caught bringing weapons from Iran to the 'Palestinian Authority' in 2002.
The Victoria carried as many as 50 tons of weapons, an amount similar to that of the Karin A, a ship caught by the IDF sailing to the Palestinian Authority in 2002. According to the Israeli Navy, this is only a preliminary estimate and weaponry found on the ship will be checked only after the Victoria docks at the Ashdod port. As mentioned, along with the strategic weapons found on the ship, a large amount of 60 and 120 mm mortar shells were found as well.
...
Catching Victoria emphasizes the importance of the maritime blockade on the Gaza Strip. “There is huge potential in smuggling weapons by sea, both in because of the simplicity of route and the large quantities it enables to smuggle. If we allow free entry of ships into the Gaza Strip, weapons will come in droves to terrorist operatives in the Gaza Strip,” added the Chief of the Navy.
As far as international law, he says the IDF is operating completely in accordance with the rules . “From the first step of questioning and gathering the facts to the interception itself, there was complete cooperation with the captain, allowing Naval Commandos to reach the ship using the ship’s ladders. The ship did not know about the cargo and was surprised by it. We believe Turkey and Egypt were as well.”
Below is a preliminary list of weaponry and weaponry systems discovered and unloaded this morning at the Ashdod Port hidden in the cargo of the “Victoria” vessel.
230 mortar shells, 120 mm
2,270 mortar shells, 60 mm
6 C-704 anti-ship missiles
2 radar systems manufactured in England
2 launchers
2 hydraulic mounting cranes for radar system
66,960 bullets for the Kalashnikov, 7.62 millimeter
Hmmm.
The media was actually invited to Ashdod to view the weapons (I was invited too but could not make it), but you may not see it in your local media.
Angry foreign reporters left a press conference on Wednesday which displayed the weapons aboard the Victoria.
The event was meant to show foreigners the successes of the Israeli commandos and to justify the naval blockade on Gaza, but the extensive security checks at the entrance led many reporters to leave.
Each member of the foreign media was subject to a full-body check, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both spoke at the press conference.
"We were told to get here at 12," Jerusalem Post video reporter Ben Spier explained, "and we waited about an hour and a half in the sun. A lot of foreign journalists decided to walk away," he explained.
Many reporters found that by the time security checks ended, the conference had already started.
Unfortunately, those kinds of checks are unavoidable, unless Barak and Netanyahu are told to stay home.
Here's a tell-all interview with Danny Seaman, the outgoing director of Israel's Government Press Office.
The Israeli media is the original skewer of the conception of Israel, and the foreign media then plays into that?
Absolutely. An example: During the war in Lebanon [in 2006], I was up North, among the journalists. In the evenings I saw the interaction between Israeli media and the foreign media. Some of the Israeli journalists were sitting there and making the most atrocious statements about the State of Israel. They had been p***ed off about a lot of things, unhappy with the way [the war was] being conducted. In some cases there was a political tone to what they were saying. That’s good and legitimate for the internal debate. But somebody from the outside doesn’t understand the basis for this or that argument. Yet [the Israeli journalists] are more than happy to convey their opinions to somebody from the outside, not understanding how somebody from outside perceives this. They’re legitimizing the delegitimization of the State of Israel.
This is perhaps the greatest threat that we have been facing over the past decade: It’s no longer a case of Israel versus the Palestinians. It’s a deliberate, concerted effort to delegitimize Israel’s existence. [Our enemies] tried to beat us on the battlefield. They tried defeating us on the low-intensity battlefield. When they lost on these two levels, they suddenly understood that the only way to fight us today is to delegitimize our right to exist...
Part of my problem with the foreign press – and I’ve been accused of being combative and feisty in fighting them – is that you have journalists coming in here not having the faintest idea of what is going on.
They live off what they get from their colleagues; they meet certain people who come from the same social-economic background; they live off of one newspaper, Haaretz. They don’t make an effort. When you have a conversation with them, you find that they have a complete lack of knowledge of the elementary issues.
This didn’t used to be the case.
Journalists from the ’70s, ’80s, who were here during the beginning of the ’90s, were very knowledgeable, very experienced. This is a different generation.
The narrative has shifted. They’ll adopt the Palestinian narrative. That has become the bon ton. They’ll talk about “the Palestinian right of return.” There is no such thing. They talk about what the Palestinians call “Israel’s violations of Oslo.” What exactly are they talking about? They have no knowledge about the facts.
Today, if you bring in, say, an expert on international law [to hold a briefing for foreign journalists], they delegitimize the person based on what they perceive to be his political opinions. This is unacceptable, especially for a journalist. We the people, in a democratic society, rely on them to provide us with the information for us to make an educated decision on a particular issue. In this case, many journalists are failing in their duty. The media outfits that employ them are giving them automatic backing. And when the media doesn’t exercise its checks and balances, they’re failing in their job.
This began with the year 2000.
People call it “the Oslo war” – the Palestinian violence which erupted at that point. I’ve been working for Israeli public relations for 27 years, and there were certain “truths” that we were told: That if we adopt UN resolutions, there’ll be peace. If we recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination, there’ll be peace. If we remove settlements, there’ll be peace. And over the past 25 years, there’s been a progression in the Israeli position: Israel recognized the PLO as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; relinquished territory; removed settlements.
Regarding Lebanon, Israel fulfilled all the UN resolutions.
Yet the end result was not the peace that we were promised. In no way am I criticizing the efforts for peace. Peace is a strategic necessity for the State of Israel. But here, in this case, these “truths” that we were promised never came about. On the contrary, it only increased violence, increased extremism. Yet there was a failure by a lot of the media to be intellectually honest, to say “maybe we need to reevaluate,” to say “maybe we shouldn’t always be taking the Palestinians’ side because they’re the underdog.”
So in the year 2000, with the violence, with the bombs exploding here, [the foreign media’s] political positions couldn’t be [justified]. Yet every time there was a bomb here, directed against civilians, instead of an automatic expression of disgust at an assault on civilians, there were always conditions: “Well, we have to understand why [the bombers are acting].” Why do we have to understand it? But morally, you can’t make that “logic” [stand up], so they went to this other “logic,” and that was the numbers: “Look how many Palestinians were killed. If there are 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, therefore the Palestinians must be victims.”
It’s nonsense. It’s morally repugnant. It’s intellectually unacceptable to make that kind of equation.
But the media repeated this. Not only in one-to-one discussions.
Reuters, AP, AFP would end their articles saying, In the recent violence, 4,000 Palestinians died compared to 1,000 Israelis. They were doing this deliberately, to create the impression that the one side that is suffering more must be justified. They were using small journalistic techniques to create an impression that put Israel in a negative light.
I noticed it most during the Lebanon War. Israel being singled out for criticism. The terminology used for Israel: Israel is always aggressive.
Israel is always active. Other things just “happen.” Missiles “rain down” on Israel. But where Israel is concerned, and I’m quoting from some media reports, they even adopt Nazi terminology: “Israel's blitzkrieg.”
Always using negatives and very aggressive terms.
By contrast, the suffering Israel endures is always caused by some obscure [force]. It’s never quite clear what’s happening, and who is responsible. The number of ways that Israel is depicted negatively is, astoundingly, much greater than with Hizbullah. Hizbullah is a terrorist organization! It is considered so by every country in the world, including the United Nations. [Yet I found foreign media] to be taking their word, their narrative as fact.
...
When the [second intifada] violence erupted, in many ways the foreign media became a tool being used against the State of Israel. We have clear evidence that shows Marwan Barghouti’s and Yasser Arafat’s involvement with [Palestinian journalists] who were employed by the foreign press [and whose status and capacity to work in Israel, with attendant concerns about security risks, was an issue that Seaman dealt with extensively, including in court battles and face-offs with various Israeli politicians].
It developed over years, beginning back in the late ’80s. [Some of these Palestinian journalists] started off at the Palestinian Information Office [in east Jerusalem], which was shut down by [prime minister Yitzhak] Shamir during the first intifada. They were shut down because it was clear that they were serving to incite people on the ground. So they left and started being employed by the foreign press.
Then foreign journalists started giving cameras to Palestinians because they were getting good pictures. It evolved over the years.
With the advent of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat adapted the same measures [he had used in] Beirut.
Some of these [foreign] media organizations knew. And not only were they sympathetic, they had people who were connected to the PLO who were assigned here as journalists because it gave them that access.
Until the year 2000 it was fine, but the moment all hell broke loose, some of these people saw it as their jobs – and I’m talking about the foreigners right now – to help the Palestinian cause. And the Palestinians involved saw it as their job and they were getting clear instructions.
Read the whole thing. I don't know which is more appalling - the extent to which the foreign media is controlled and biased against us or the extent to which we don't stick up for ourselves.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
