Tuesday, April 05, 2011

One-Sided Reporting On Israel

The Palestinian Centre For Human Rights criticized the Gaza terrorists:
[M]embers of the Palestinian resistance continue to store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas. This poses a major threat to the lives of the Palestinian civilians and constitutes a violation of both International Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.
The PCHR laments that such activities pose a threat to "Palestinians and their property."

The New York Times called the condemnation "unusual." Perhaps. But Bruce Kesler at Maggie's Farm spots the dog that didn't bark:
What’s missing from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights criticism, and from the New York Times report?

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights doesn’t condemn the rocket and mortar firing into Israel, and the New York Times doesn’t mention that.

The increased import of longer-range rockets into Gaza now land in the large city of Beersheba, and, as seen in the latest firings last week, now puts the southern area of Tel Aviv and Israel’s major port at Ashdod into range. They may soon reach to Jerusalem.
The attacks from Gaza hardly are a secret. Even the notoriously anti-Israeli Human Rights Watch called the rocket attacks on Israel "violations of the laws of war." But somehow the Times ignores the obvious: the explosives stored in Gaza are being lobbed at Israel. The PCHR doesn't fault the terrorists for killing unarmed Israeli civilians, which is the real story.

The Times isn't alone--Reuters recently published this puzzler about a bus-stop bombing in Jerusalem:
Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
As the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg observes:
Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a "terrorist attack"? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a "teachable moment." Or as a "venting of certain frustrations." Or as "an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy." Or perhaps as "a very special episode of 'Cheers.'" Anything but "a terrorist attack." I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as "an exercise in urban renewal."
Hamas doesn't need official spokesmen: they have the mainstream media.


Warren said...

British Colonel: "The IDF Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Other Army"


Whitehall said...

Hamas shooting rockets into Israel?

More like a re-run of "Friends."

MaxedOutMama said...

The sad part is that Hamas really kind of does have mainstream media, plus the UN, plus all the "rightthinkers" everywhere.

And still they can't find their asses with both hands.

Maybe having these people on your side is not an asset?

Atlanta Roofing said...

The reason Israel didn’t cooperate with Goldstone in the first place was the fact that unlike other judges he agreed to head a committee whose actual mandate was to blame Israel for war crimes. This man has caused unprecedented damage to the State of Israel. Thousands of Israeli soldiers and officers are subject to legal proceedings around the globe thanks to him. His article of regret has no legal bearing which could prevent these proceedings from going on further.

Warren said...

The Debate that Changed Goldstone's Mind?


Carl said...

Warren: good link; thanks.

OBloodyHell said...

> Maybe having these people on your side is not an asset?

Not when you're as stupid as an arab, no. These people didn't learn anything from the last 70 years of fighting Israelis and Jews. How much more stupid can you get?

Warren said...

The Berkowitz and Bell Statements on the Goldstone Report -- What Justice Goldstone Heard at Stanford on March 28