Violence escalates along Gaza-Israel border

“Violence.” Rocketing civilians is “violence.”

Now, let’s parse the lede:

The Israeli air force has hit seven suspected militant sites in Gaza while the Palestinian militants sent a rocket into southern Israel in a flare-up along the Israel-Gaza border.

Note that the onus is on Israel. The AP describes the Israeli airforce as being the instigators in a “flare-up.” A kassam rocket nearly hit a kindergarten, and the AP does not mention that in the lede, nor that a girl was injured. There’s a picture at this link. UPI managed to report the information that only the Israeli press is currently reporting, and also include a picture of those “home-made” rockets.

In the rest of the AP story, note that the angle is on the Palestinians. The AP names the Palestinian quoted but attributes all Israeli quotes to “the military.” Note also that the second paragraph reports the wounding of three Palestinians but does not identify them as terrorists. The AFP managed to report that they are terrorists. Lastly, the AP uncritically reports that the IDF hit a “dairy factory.” Shades of Saddam Hussein’s baby milk factory.

Gaza health official Adham Abu Salmia says three Palestinians were wounded in the airstrikes. One reportedly was a dairy factory.

The military said on Tuesday the airstrikes targeted smuggling tunnels and a weapons-manufacturing facility. It says some of the tunnels were dug so militants could infiltrate Israel to carry out attacks.

We still haven’t found out why the IAF is bombing Gaza. And we’re already three paragraphs in. Remember that in many “World News” sections in your local paper, the first three paragraphs are sometimes all that you read. In those three grafs, we’ve learned that “violence” flared up on the Gaza border, the Israelis bombed seven terrorist sites while the terrorists only fired one rocket, and that Palestinians were hurt, but no Israelis. So, now what is the AP going to reveal?

The military also says the airstrikes were in retaliation for the firing of 13 rockets and mortars at Israel this week.

Israel Radio says the rocket fired by Gaza militants on Tuesday landed near a nursery school. No serious injuries were reported.

Ah. Now we get the reason, near the end of the article. But the really nasty bit of yellow journalism is the addition of “No serious injuries were reported,” because the writer can point to that and say that he did mention the 14-year-old girl’s injuries—just not that she was 14, running into a sheltered room from the shower, and struck by flying glass shards in her leg (also that the rocket missed a gas truck by mere yards).

It is articles like this that foster the pro-Palestinian side of the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. This is one of the tentacles of the delegitimization of Israel, and the dehumanizing of Israelis while humanizing the Palestinians. These are the news articles that go into thousands of American newspapers, are read on thousands of American radio stations, and are researched by thousands of American television stations for the evening broadcast.

An update went out around 7:30 this morning. Here’s the lede:

The Israeli air force hit seven suspected militant sites in the Gaza Strip in an unusually large operation early Tuesday, and Palestinian militants retaliated by sending a rocket crashing down near a kindergarten in southern Israel.

Gaza health official Adham Abu Salmia said three Palestinians were wounded in the airstrikes. A 16-year-old girl told Israel Radio she was slightly wounded by shattered glass in the rocket blast.

The violence was the latest sign of escalating tensions along the Gaza-Israel border, where five militants were killed Saturday in the deadliest Israeli assault in the coastal strip in months.

Note that the AP manages to make the Israeli girl’s injury a result of the IAF bombing terrorist sites. Also that they did not name the girl, though her name is all over the Israeli media. And last, they note the killing of five terrorists, but not that they were a rocket squad, that they were about to launch rockets, and that they were proudly proclaimed as martyrs by PIJ. They make it seem, once again, that the rockets go into Israel because Israelis kill Palestinians.

The next update will whitewash the Palestinian side even further. Mark my words.

In his four decades as Palestinian leader, Arafat was a complex and often divisive figure – branded by some as an arch-terrorist and celebrated by others as the father of the Palestinian national movement. His nomadic lifestyle, penchant for late-night meetings and flair for dramatic gestures fanned a fascination that has outlived him.

Yeah. “Some.” Arafat was the father of modern terrorism. He founded Fatah in 1959, while the West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control. He took over the PLO in 1964.

In Syria, however, he managed to recruit members by offering them higher incomes to enable his armed attacks against Israel. Fatah’s manpower was incremented further after Arafat decided to offer much higher salaries to members of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA), the regular military force of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was created by the Arab League in the summer of 1964. On December 31 of that same year, a squad from al-Assifa, the armed branch of Fatah at the time, attempted to infiltrate Israel, but they were intercepted and detained by Lebanese security forces. Several other raids with Fatah’s poorly trained and badly equipped fighters followed this incident. Some were successful, others failed in their missions. Arafat often led these incursions personally.[12]

He killed Jews long before Israel controlled “Palestinian” lands. And then there was Black September, where the PLO sought to take over Jordan, and thousands of Palestinians were killed by the Jordanian army. That’s all on him. It’s not mentioned at all in the article. Because of course, Arabs killing Arabs gets a pass. As did his years of terrorism, which the AP boiled down to this:

In the 1970s, Arafat’s name became a household word after Palestinians launched a series of hijackings and attacks to publicize their struggle. In 1974, he famously addressed the U.N. General Assembly in New York, entering the chamber wearing a holster and carrying an olive branch.

The AP also did not cover things that Arafat said that utterly belied his cover of seeking peace:

Our basic aim is to liberate the land from the Mediterranean Seas to the Jordan River. We are not concerned with what took place in June 1967 or in eliminating the the consequences of the June war. The Palestinian revolution’s basic concern is the uprooting of the Zionist entity from our land and liberating it.

There is also the confession from Hamas that Arafat directed them to commit terror attacks during the height of peace negotiations with Israel.

And last, but not least, they repeat the lie that Israel poisoned Arafat, adding “balance” by saying that the claimants have no proof.

Yasser Arafat is dead, but his PR department lives on.

Crowd harasses UN investigators in Beirut

Oh, so a crowd yelled slogans or something at UN investigators? Maybe they booed them? Not quite.

Dr. Iman Sharara, who runs the clinic, said two men – an Australian and a French national – showed up with a Lebanese interpreter for an appointment to go through some phone records.

When she went outside to speak to her secretary, she saw a large group of women force their way into the clinic, screaming and trampling on documents belonging to the clinic.

“It looked like a real battle,” she told reporters. “The investigators fled. The interpreter, they pulled her hair, they snatched things from them … I returned to my clinic, hid inside and called my husband.”

[...] A police official said more than 30 women stormed the building, with another 75 or so remaining outside. He added, on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give official statements, that the crowd shouted curses at the tribunal and one protester stole an investigator’s briefcase.

Wow. That’s quite a mob scene. Perhaps we should take a look at the AP’s take on a march by Israeli Jews through an Arab town.

Police, protesters clash in Arab Israeli town

What? The Israeli Jews clashed with the police? That’s terrible!

Dozens of Jewish extremists hoisting Israeli flags defiantly marched through this Arab-Israeli town Wednesday, chanting “death to terrorists” and touching off clashes between rock-hurling residents and police who quelled them with tear gas.

Wait, what? The Jews threw rocks?

Hundreds of police deployed in the town after Israel’s Supreme Court authorized the march, which took place on the outskirts of town. Some 350 Arab residents gathered in anticipation of the rally, and youths threw rocks at police, who dispersed the crowd with tear gas and stun grenades.

Oh. The Arabs threw the rocks at the police. So it was a riot. An Arab riot. All the Jews did was march and chant “Death to terrorists.” No wonder the Arab “youths” threw rocks at the police. So effectively, if we’re talking about a riot, it sure seems like both stories have what it takes for a headline including the word “clash,” and yet—the Lebanese women “harassed” the UN investigators. You know, by pulling hair, mobbing them, stealing a briefcase—all typically harassing behavior.

The AP: You can always count on them for pure, unbiased reporting.

The militant group is leading the negotiations, demanding the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for the soldier. Those prisoners include top-level Hamas militants who oversaw or planned attacks that killed Israelis in years of fighting.

“Years of fighting” is now the AP pseudonym for terror attacks, suicide bombings, and shooting attacks on civilians. Let me review a few of those “attacks that killed Israelis in years of fighting”:

• Aug 31, 2004: 16 people were killed and 100 wounded in two suicide bombings within minutes of each other on two Beersheba city buses, on route nos. 6 and 12.
• May 14, 2004: Ten people were killed and 16 wounded in a double suicide bombing in the area of the Ashdod Port. Hamas and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.
• January 14. 2004: A female suicide bomber killed four people and wounded 20 at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

There are many, many more, up to and including the current year. These aren’t examples of “fighting.” But then, I never expect any less of a whitewash from Ibrahim Barzak, the author of the article. Note that in the updated piece, the “years of fighting” has become:

The most recent talks broke down over Israel’s refusal to release a number of prisoners who carried out deadly attacks on civilians because of fears they would return to violence. Hamas insists these prisoners be part of any deal.

The update was written by Aron Heller. What a difference an author makes. And oh, yeah—they’re back to the “traditionally Arab east Jerusalem” crap. Because the Temple Mount, which is in the eastern half of Jerusalem, is so totally traditionally Arab that I guess there weren’t two Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount before the Arabs built their mosques there.

It’s all in our imagination.

Just call me a bee climate-denier: Say, remember that big, overly-hyped “OMG! THE BEES ARE DYING!” story of a few years back? The ones that blamed people for it even though the facts weren’t in? Turns out the causes are twofold: A virus tagteaming with a fungus. Funny, it wasn’t the environment crashing after all.

The Hizbullah Diversion Dance: Khaled Abu Toameh says Iran is about to push Hizbullah into a coup to divert attention from the UN Hariri Commission uncovering the truth about the murderous organization. Watch for the Obama administration to say something in a really annoyed tone if this occurs.

What? The AP got its facts wrong, too? The JPost says those two senior Hamas men the IDF took out this morning were one senior and one terrorist-in-training. Think the AP will correct? I don’t.

The IAEA helps Iran get illegal equipment: Seriously. No, SERIOUSLY. The IAEA helped ship illegal nuclear equipment to a banned Iranian receiver. Awesome. The IAEA is helping Iran get the bomb. But the UN is just super. Without it, we’d have chaos. Just imagine a world without the UN.

The answer to this is to bomb Syria again: If Syria goes unpenalized for arming Israel’s enemy in Lebanon, Syria will continue to train Hizbullah in how to fire Scud rockets, and send Scuds to them to fire. It’s time for Israel to start making the proxy war states pay a price for arming Hamas and Hizbullah. Bomb the military bases, preferably with Hizbullah terrorists inside.

Arsonists torched a mosque in a West Bank village Monday, scrawling “revenge” on a wall in Hebrew and charring copies of the Muslim holy book in an attack that threatened to stoke tensions over deadlocked Mideast peacemaking.

Palestinians say they suspect hard-line Jewish settlers of setting the fire in the village of Beit Fajjar, near the city of Hebron. The attack is likely to hamper U.S. efforts to sustain month-old between Israelis and Palestinians, now deadlocked over settlement construction.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials condemned the arson attack in an apparent attempt to limit the political fallout.

A mosque was set on fire in an arson attack. Leading Israeli politicians condemned the attack. But the AP attributes a different meaning to the condemnations. They’re not condemnations. They’re an “attempt to limit the political fallout.”

Here’s one of those “attempts“:

The Defense Minister said that, “Whoever did this is a terrorist in every sense of the word, and intended to hurt the chances for peace and dialogue with the Palestinians. This was a shameful act that besmirched the State of Israel and its values.”

So the AP writer has reached into Ehud Barak’s mind and decided that the reason he stated the above was out of political necessity—not sincerity.

As always, the AP is breaking its own statement of values and principles.

But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

Do I expect more from the AP? Nope. If they suddenly shaped up into an unbiased and respectable news organization, I’d lose half my post fodder.

By the way, they have never editorialized about Mahmoud Abbas “condemning” terrorist attacks, not even when the “condemnation” is in the order of “This hurts the Palestinian cause.”

Update: Quote by Barak added.

Analysts on both sides questioned the ability and desire of their leaders to negotiate a peace accord.

[...] In Washington, Netanyahu talked of creating a Palestinian state, a phrase he uttered for the first time just last year after strident opposition to the concept for two decades, and called for “mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”

But wait! There’s more!

Most Israeli analysts admitted to not knowing what was really on Netanyahu’s mind. Writing from Washington, veteran Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea was uncharacteristically ambivalent.

“If this was just for show, Netanyahu played it well,” Barnea wrote. “But perhaps this was not only a show. Not this time.”

No, wait! There’s even more!

Netanyahu’s Likud Party has been among the strongest backers of Israel keeping much or all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem and expanding Jewish settlements on land the Palestinians want for a future state. Netanyahu’s coalition government is a patchwork of Likud, the moderate Labor, the hawkish secular Yisrael Beitenu and ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas parties.

Wow, with all this, what does the writer have to say about Palestinian intransigence?

Palestinian political activist Mustafa Barghouti joined a demonstration against resumption of the talks, though he has supported peace efforts in the past. He charged that Israel’s settlement construction is sabotaging chances for peace. “We fear that all sides are losing the last opportunity for a two-state solution” of a Palestinian state next to Israel.

And:

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Abbas had no right to negotiate for the Palestinian people. “Therefore, any result and outcome of these talks does not commit us and does not commit our people, it only commits Abbas himself,” he said.

There are also quotes from Israelis in that section. So to sum up: Netanyahu doesn’t really want peace. Abbas does, but is being held back by a) Israeli settlement construction and b) Hamas.

I can’t remember who, but one of my friends who is also a pro-Israel analyst has told me that Mark Lavie is an unbiased reporter. I’m thinking not. The editor can only put so much spin on the article you write. Lavie is obviously no fan of Netanyahu. And it shows. Way to be objective, AP!

The settlement sheds light on ancient Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period (1600-1569 B.C.), when the Egyptian pharaohs were trapped between the Hyksos invaders of Asia in the north and a Nubian kingdom in the south. The oases and their trade routes were likely key to the survival of the Egyptian kingdom.

The ancient routes stretched from the Darfur region in Sudan through the oases and the Nile Valley up to the ancient Palestine and Syria, with long caravans of donkeys bringing wines, luxury goods and wealth along with them. It would at least be 1,000 years before the camel made its appearance.

Figured it out yet? “Ancient Palestine” did not exist in the timeframe the article is discussing. The Romans renamed Judea “Palestine” many centuries later. It would probably be more proper to call it the ancient Israel, or even Judea—but it sure as hell wasn’t known as “Palestine” 3,500 years ago.

This is how Israel becomes de-legitimized. The media chip away at Israel’s history, bit by bit by bit, until the anti-Israel voice drowns out the true history of the Middle East.

Darfur is a modern name. Sudan is a modern name. Israel is a modern name. One of these things, (according to the AP) however, is not like the other.

Israeli PM: Peace ‘difficult but possible’

By MATTI FRIEDMAN
JERUSALEM (AP) – Israel’s prime minister spelled out his opening position for the new round of Mideast peace talks set to begin next week, insisting Sunday on key security conditions and saying an agreement would be “difficult but possible.”

Netanyahu said a future Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and respect Israel’s vital security interests. Some of his demands have already been rejected outright by the Palestinians.

The second version also increases the demonizing of the Israeli side and pushes the pro-Palestinian bias. The first version:

In addition, he said, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people just as Israel would recognize the Palestinian state as that of the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians have balked at that demand, saying it could prejudice the rights of Israel’s Arab minority and compromise the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes vacated in the fighting around Israel’s establishment in 1948.

The comments indicated just how much work lies ahead for President Barack Obama, who hopes to resolve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts within a year.

In the 9:49 update, note how the AP has added that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a state, something that I’d like to see on paper. As far as I know, the original PLO charter that calls for the end to Israel is still in effect. Note also that there are extensive quotes by Saab Erekat.

In addition, he said, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people just as Israel would recognize the Palestinian state as that of the Palestinian people.

The Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist, but refuse to take a stand on the nature of the country. They say that recognizing Israel as the Jewish state could prejudice the rights of Israel’s Arab minority and compromise the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes vacated in the fighting around Israel’s establishment in 1948.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Netanyahu’s comments were “dictation, not negotiation.”

“If he wants negotiations, he knows that these conditions won’t stand,” Erekat said.

The comments indicated just how much work lies ahead for President Barack Obama, who hopes to resolve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts within a year.

Some other notes on the article: The words “hard-line” are used three times to describe the Israelis. It’s mentioned only once in the final version, but look how it is used:

Something close to the Olmert proposal – including a Palestinian presence in east Jerusalem and a near-complete withdrawal from the West Bank – is widely seen as the basis for a future settlement. But Netanyahu, who leads a coalition dominated by hard-line nationalistic and religious parties, has signaled he is not willing to go that far.

The bias is the same throughout all three versions. The final update changes the headline, the lead, and the author. Note the change in the tone of both the headline and the lead. It’s no longer about Netanyahu saying that peace is “difficult but possible.” Now, it’s about Netanyahu and Israeli “demands.” The AP takes the Palestinian line and insists that Netanyahu is calling for “conditions.” These aren’t conditions. They are goals, and in fact, Netanyahu stated these goals plainly months ago when he called for a Palestinian state, partly in answer to the critics who said he didn’t want to work towards Palestinian statehood.

Israeli PM stakes out positions for peace talks

JERUSALEM (AP) – Israel’s prime minister demanded Sunday that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized and recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, as he staked out his starting position for new Mideast peace talks.

Benjamin Netanyahu said reaching a deal will be difficult but possible. The conditions he laid down, coupled with a swift Palestinian rejection, illustrated just how difficult the task will be for the U.S. to meet its goal of brokering peace within a year. Talks are set to begin in Washington next week.

The AP is absolutely carrying water for the Palestinians in this reporting. Take this paragraph from the last version, making the insistence on having no preconditions for peace talks seem like an unreasonable demand by the “hard-line” Netanyahu:

He pointedly insisted that there be no preconditions for him to rejoin the peace talks, and his aides have given no details about what concessions he is prepared to make, saying that is a matter for negotiations.

And not until the fourth paragraph from the end does the report get around to the fact that the Palestinian Authority is not negotiating for all the Palestinians. You would think that would be an important part of the lead. You would be wrong. The world is pretending that Hamas is still the democratically elected government of Hamas, in spite of the murderous coup that rid them of Fatah politicians in Gaza, and in spite of the fact that for both the PA and Hamas, the election deadline is long past, and no one has pretended that it’s time for another one. That, too, might seem important to point out in the story. But the media have never seemed to think that standards apply to the Palestinians.

Which is why we get three hit pieces in a row, each of them nastier and more anti-Israel than the preceding.

The AP updates: They keep on spinning the news more pro-Palestinian with each version, and I’ll keep on pointing it it out to my readers. Somebody has to.

The Congressman Berman said his concerns about Hezbollah’s influence over the Lebanese armed forces were reinforced a day after he suspended the aid when Israeli and Lebanese army forces clashed along their common border.

Hezbollah and the Lebanese army both insisted the militant group did not take part in the clash, and the State Department said Monday there was no evidence American-supplied equipment had been used by Lebanese soldiers. It said it was not yet clear whether the soldiers involved had received U.S. military training.

The fighting was the worst since 2006 in the area, killing two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and an Israeli officer. It underlined how easily tensions can re-ignite along the frontier where Israel and Hezbollah fought a war four years ago.

This, in spite of the fact that the Lebanese army itself declared that it fired first, admitting that its troops ambushed the Israelis. Ynet managed to find this quote by Congressman Berman, but the AP article elided the quote to the words in bold:

Berman continued, “I strongly condemn the unprovoked attacked by the Lebanese Army that resulted in the death of an Israeli officer. Until we know more about this incident and the nature of Hizballah influence on the LAF — and can assure that the LAF is a responsible actor — I cannot in good conscience allow the United States to continue sending weapons to Lebanon.”

There, in a nutshell, is how you bias an article. Remove any reference to the Lebanese responsibility for the attack on Israeli troops. Don’t mention the presence of a television crew sent by Hassan Nasrallah to film the ambush. Don’t mention the extraordinary number of journalists present at a regular tree pruning. But do pretend that it was a battle caused by both sides, when in fact, it was an ambush that was responded to with force.

Yep. The AP is back to normal. I expect they fired the editor of the unbiased pieces.