Media analysts and the anti-Israel narrative

The Christian Science Monitor is not a friend to Israel, but this particular analysis strikes me as so utterly blind to reality that it simply demands to be fisked. It’s titled “Why Israel may need to rethink its assumptions on Palestinian unity.” It is, as usual, an article trying to impose its view of Hamas against all evidence, thus, of course, casting Israel in a negative light.

Let’s see what the author has to say.

Israel’s approach rests on two assumptions: that Mr. Abbas, who is also leader of Fatah, could enforce a peace deal without reconciling with Hamas; and that Hamas would never give up its stated intention to destroy Israel. Both may need rethinking.

Really? Israel needs to rethink its stance on Hamas? Why is that, because Hamas is going to give up its stated goal of the destruction of Israel?

Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, still adheres to its founding charter, which declares itself a link in the long chain of jihad against the “Zionist occupation.” It states that liberating Palestine is a religious obligation for every Muslim, and that giving up any part of Palestine would be tantamount to giving up their faith.

Oh, so it’s not going to give up trying to destroy Israel? Wait, I sense a “but” coming on.

But the organization has evolved considerably since its founding in 1987. Today it includes factions which are considerably more pragmatic.

While some remain committed to violence, other factions have moderated, especially since winning elections in 2006 and finding themselves facing the challenge of governance, not just resistance. After two devastating conflicts with Israel in 2009 and 2012, Hamas has tried to keep a lid on other militant groups sending rockets into Israel.

Note the lack of context here. Why is Hamas keeping a lid on terrorists rocketing Israel? Because Israel has told Hamas flat-out that if the rockets don’t stop, Israel will go back into Gaza and make them stop. Also, that supposed lid? Not working so much.

Now we go back to the historic “moderating” statements, where the reporter takes years-old statements by Hamas that indicated they might be willing to settle for a truce with Israel–statements which always, always were negated by Hamas the very same day–and pretend they’re still valid, and proof of moderation. Note also that they’re passing along the lie of the Palestinians only receiving 22 percent of what the UN had laid out for the Palestinian state. Jordan was part of the state. It did not exist as a nation until quite recently. But the Brits had to have somewhere to settle the Hashemite kings after they gave Arabia to the Sauds. (And thank you, Britain, for what is now the Wahabbi scourge of the world.)

And in 2009 and 2010, leaders indicated a willingness to settle for a Palestinian state within 1967 lines – only 22 percent of the territory framed by the Lebanon border, the Jordan river, the Egyptian border, and the Mediterranean Sea.

Note that the reporter utterly ignores the many statements by Hamas since 2010 where they insist they will never recognize Israel. Some are quite recent. From January of this year, in fact. One would think that reporters of Israeli events might, you know, keep an eye on the Israeli papers for news like this.

Hamas announced on Tuesday that it would never accept the two-state solution or give up “one inch of the land of Palestine.”

Its announcement came in response to statements attributed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the effect that the Islamist movement had “authorized” him to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines.

The CSM reporter is being disingenuous, cherry-picking statements that support her argument and ignoring those that do not. Because the second half of Hamas agreeing to settle for a Palestinian state within the 1949 Armistice lines is always this:

The Islamist group said that in 2006, all Palestinian factions agreed to the establishment of Palestinian state on the pre- 1967 lines and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes inside Israel “without recognizing the Zionist entity or its legitimacy on the land of Palestine.”

It added that “resistance in all shapes, first and foremost armed struggle, will remain the only effective way to achieve the goals of the Palestinian people and liberate their land.”

Israel doesn’t need to rethink its strategy on Hamas at all. Reporters need to stop cherry-picking the facts that don’t support the narrative they constantly push–that a terrorist group is willing to renounce terrorism and suddenly get along with the state and people it has sworn to destroy. Let’s not forget the group’s charter, which is anti-Semitic and swears to destroy Israel:

“Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it.”

But hey, I’m sure the CSM reporter can find a way to spin that. It’s not like Hamas is serious about its religion or anything.


This entry was posted in Hamas, Israel, Media Bias. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Media analysts and the anti-Israel narrative

  1. Gary Rosen says:

    The Hamas charter is more than merely “anti-Semitic”. It is explicitly annihilationist, calling for the murder of Jews. Not Israelis. Not Zionists. Not settlers. Jews. Of course I am hardly surprised that the CSM would acquiesce to this disgrace.

Comments are closed.