One of the things that is extremely puzzling about any AP report on Samir Kuntar is why the AP insists on presenting Kuntar’s side of the story as if the facts were disputed. In every story about the Lebanese prisoner exchange, you now read something like this:
One of the Lebanese convicts to be freed in the deal has been held in an Israeli prison nearly 30 years for his role in a 1979 attack that Israelis perceive as one of the cruelest in their history.
Samir Kantar dragged a man and his 4-year-old daughter from their apartment to the beach below, and according to witness testimony, shot the man to death in front of his child, then crushed her head against a rock with his rifle butt. He also was convicted of killing a policeman. The man’s wife accidentally smothered their 2-year-old daughter in an effort to keep her from crying out and disclosing their hiding place in a crawl space in the apartment.
Kantar has denied killing the older child or crushing her skull.
He was caught by Israeli soldiers. When he saw that he was about to be caught, he murdered his two captives. There is no dispute, which is why he’s serving life in prison. And yet, the AP sees fit to include Kuntar’s denial in every article in which they mention his crimes.
Why?
What purpose does it serve?
How does it show “objectivity” to include a murderer’s protestations of innocence? There were witnesses. He was tried and convicted in an Israeli court. And still, the AP includes Kuntar’s lies.
I think it speaks volumes about the AP’s utter lack of objectivity when it comes to Israel.
What surprises me is why Kuntar would even bother to deny what he did. After all, his crime hasn’t endangered him here (he married and earned a university degree in prison), and it makes him a hero among his jihadi brethren. So what has he got to lose?
There is no spoon…
Accused of murdering three children and a dog, the Palis will deny the charge and triumphantly produce the dog alive to disprove the accusation.