Guardian brings back Jihad Misharawi photo to illustrate ‘Israeli attacks’

Hamas terrorists fired approximately 2270 rockets at Israeli civilians since the beginning of the current war. We know that a percentage of mortars and Grad rockets have fallen short and landed in Gazan territory – quite possibly (based on past experiences) injuring or killing Palestinian civilians. You may recall that most UK media outlets accused Israel of firing a missile, during the 2012 war in Gaza, which killed the 11 month old son of BBC Arabic cameraman Jihad Misharawi.

old

Elder of Ziyon and BBC Watch (and other blogs) were among those who examined the evidence and suggested that Omar Misharawi was actually more than likely killed by an errant Palestinian rocket.

Their skepticism was well-founded.

On March 6th 2013 the United Nations Human Rights Council issued an advance version of its report on the November war and noted the following about the death of Ahmad Misharawi.

“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.” [emphasis added]

Following communication with CiF Watch in the days following the release of the UNHRC report, quite a few UK media outlets corrected their original stories, and noted that a Palestinian rocket likely caused the death of Misharawi’s son. 

greenslade

So, we were somewhat surprised to say the least to see the following photo accompany a batch of Guardian letters published on July 23rd. (Note the caption below the photo.) 

masharawiThey decided to use a photo of an infant who was killed by an ‘errant’ Palestinian rocket to illustrate the view – expressed by one letter writer – that “Israel’s attacks are an extension of military rule and collective punishment by a brutal apartheid state”.

Evidently, old, disproven media smears against Israel never actually die.  

They simply get recycled at the Guardian. 

One sentence by the Guardian’s Mid-East editor explains their coverage of the war

 To date, the Guardian’s coverage of the war has revealed the following:

  • A focus on claims of Israeli war crimes, and silence concerning Hamas’s widespread (and well-documented) illegal use of human shields.
  • The acceptance of Palestinians claims (about the number of civilians casualties, for instance) at face value.
  • A dearth of commentaries (at their blog, Comment is Free, political cartoons, etc.) that are critical of Hamas.

Indeed, one sentence in a July 23rd article (UN human rights body to investigate claims of Israeli violations in Gaza) written by the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, arguably helps explains at least the last dynamic we cited.

While providing analysis on the predictable decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “to launch an international inquiry into violations” against Israel, Black makes the following observation about demands to end Israel’s blockade.  

“Pillay also called for an end to the blockade of Gaza, the underlying reason for the conflict and an issue that will have to be tackled if any ceasefire is to endure.”

So, Israel’s legal Naval blockade of weapons to Gaza, according to the Guardian’s senior Middle East editor, represents the “underlying reason for the conflict” between Israel and Hamas!  

Does it really need to be pointed out that the blockade is meant to at least limit the terrorist group’s capacity to import deadly weapons into the strip and that, in lieu of such restrictions, Hamas would be free to acquire even more accurate and deadly weapons than they’re using in the current war?

Does Black honestly believe that Hamas leaders truly only desire an end to the blockade in order to provide a better standards of living for Gazans?

Does Black not know that Hamas has diverted tens of millions of dollars in imported cement and other construction materials (supposedly meant for “humanitarian projects” such as roads, schools and clinics) to construct terror tunnels and other weapons of war?

However, beyond the specifics of the blockade, Black’s absurd reduction of the conflict, it’s amazing that such putatively sophisticated journalists fail to understand the blockade is the result of Hamas’s aggression, not its cause.  

It all seems to come down to an intellectually crippling political correctness which insists upon imputing reasonableness to even the most malevolent political actors.

Such absurd moral equivalencies are what drive Guardian editors to continually fail to even note that the Sunni Islamist group (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) is an extremist organization, one which oppresses women and gays, shuns democratic values, rejects the very idea of peace with the Jewish State, and promotes the most virulent form of antisemitism, which includes explicit incitement to engage in the mass murder of Jews.

Hamas’s reactionary politics  - their contempt for modern notions of tolerance, freedom, individual rights and the sanctity of human life – is of course the underlying cause of the conflict, and it continually baffles us how such putatively anti-racists can’t morally distinguish between antisemitic extremists and the Jews they’re trying so desperately to kill. 

Facts about the battle of Shejaiya the Guardian didn’t report

On July 20th, we posted about two Guardian reports, by Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont, on recent fighting between the IDF and Hamas in the Gaza City neighbourhood of Shejaiya, a few kilometers from Israel’s border.

We noted that the Guardian devoted 625 words to the battles that took place in Shejaiya and, while focusing almost entirely on civilian casualties, failed to include even a word about the reason for the military operation.  Specifically, Sherwood and Beaumont didn’t inform readers that the civilian neighborhood of Shujaiya housed an underground terror headquarters and storage areas for rockets, bombs, and other weapons.

Below are excerpts from two articles about the battle, written by two of the leading Israeli journalists, Ron Ben Yishai and Nahum Barnea, both in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot.

The translation is by CAMERA:

Ron Ben Yishai
Yediot Achronot“Gaza time, Cairo Time”
Sunday July 20, 2014 (excerpts)

 

Regarding the fighting in Shejaiyya: it is reasonable to assume that the main reason there was so much resistance, was the lack of surprise. Four days prior to entering Shejaiyya, the IDF demanded again and again from the residents to evacuate. Towards the entrance, the IDF started a heavy artillery attack on the outskirts of Shejaiyya. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad, therefore, had four days and a warning of a few hours that the IDF is going in. This is why – as opposed to Hamas fighters escaping to their hiding places when the IDF launched the sudden ground attack – this time they hid traps, prepared anti-tank ambushes and waited for the Golani brigade, tanks and bulldozers to come in.

Another reason is that Shejaiyya is in effect a military compound prepared for fighting, which is planted in the heart of the civilian population. All of the assets that are important for the terror organizations are there: welding workshops for manufacturing rockets, labs for making explosives, rocket warehouses, hidden rocket launchers, command centers, and a tunnel system that enables the terrorists to move between these facilities quickly without being concerned about getting hit from the air. There are also entrances to tunnels that lead into Israel.

Shejaiyya’s location makes it preferable in the context of distance and as an observation point – for shooting towards the local surroundings as well as towards the Tel Aviv area and northwards. This is why it’s not surprising that Hamas and Jihad decided to fight for Shejaiyya, and they had time to prepare for such fighting.

Golani did what they came to do, fought and died, but it is quite clear that they continued and completed the mission, including extricating their [wounded and dead] friends.

That was the reason that the IDF began a heavy attack on Shejaiyya in the morning, with artillery, planes, helicopters and tanks. There was concern that Hamas will try to grab bodies of soldiers who lay dead in the streets, or wounded Golani soldiers. In order to cover the rescue mission and prevent [the terrorists from] coming close, the IDF shot into the neighborhood, and this is why many Palestinians who were not involved in the fighting were hit – including women and children. These photos did, and are still doing, damage for Israel in the international arena. But, as just said, there was a necessity to act in order to prevent the kidnapping of dead or injured soldiers. It seems the international community understands this.

Nahum Barnea
Yediot Achronot, The Bint Jbeil of Gaza

Monday July 21, 2014, page 2 of the print edition (excerpts)(The words of an IDF officer to the journalist Nahum Barnea):

“Shejaiyya probably has the most concentrated number of tunnels in Gaza. The neighborhood is dense, the homes are high, some have five or six stories… Many residents fled. Some stayed. Hamas people were threatening them with weapons. I saw this with my own eyes. We dropped warning pamphlets on them telling them to leave; we called them on the phone; we shot towards the outskirts of the open areas; we shot close to the houses. We could not do more than this. Anyone who had half a brain left and whoever stayed, stayed.”

Guardian likens Hamas rockets to “useless fireworks”

The Guardian, in an official editorial on the war in Gaza, argued the following:

In all the years they have been swooping over the border like useless fireworks, the primitive rockets that Hamas fires at Israel have killed hardly anybody. They scare people, close supermarkets, disrupt business and increase insurance premiums.

They’re of course referring to the more than 15,000 deadly projectiles fired from Gaza since 2001.

Here is the arsenal of “primitive rockets” the Guardian is referring to:

SIN03_ISRAEL-GAZA-ROCKETS-T_0306_11

Here’s a glimpse into the effects of the “useless” fireworks” “swooping over the border” to the southern Israeli city of Sderot:

 

Contrary to Guardian claims (that “hardly anybody” has been killed by these “useless fireworks”), at least 20 Israelis have been killed in Gaza rocket attacks since 2001, and 15 have been killed in Gaza mortar attacks. (sources: here, here, here, here, here, and here). Over a thousand Israelis have been injured in such attacks.

Finally, every Gaza rocket (all 15,000) of course has the capacity to kill an Israeli man, woman or child, and all represent an attempt to do just that.

Describing such deadly instruments of war as “useless fireworks” (which have killed ‘hardly anyone’) is simply untrue, and grossly insensitive to Israeli victims. 

Guardian cartoon depicts Bibi with suicide vest of dead Palestinians

Like any good Guardian Left contributor, Cartoonist Steve Bell seems to share the philosophy of his colleague Martin Rowson, who believes his ‘progressive mission is to ‘afflict the powerful, and comfort the afflicted’.  Within this facile moral paradigm, Jews represent the former and Palestinians the latter.  

In addition to the fact that some of his cartoons have evoked antisemitic narratives (or mock the very idea of antisemitic tropes), as far as we can tell Bell has never used his skills as an artist to demonize Palestinian suicide bombers – as they, it seems, even as they are igniting their murderous device, represent the ‘afflicted’. Though in at least one cartoon he mocked – as hypocritical – Israeli condemnation of said bombers. 

He revisited the topic of suicide bombers in a cartoon published at the Guardian on July 21st. The cartoon was inspired by comments of the Israeli Prime Minister about Hamas’s exploitation of Palestinian casualties, in which he made the painfully obvious observation that the group puts civilians in harm’s way because they know that images of dead Palestinians in Western papers helps their cause. 

Here’s the full quote, from an interview Netanyahu gave to CNN:

“These people are the worst terrorists — genocidal terrorists,” he said. “They call for the destruction of Israel and they call for the killing of every Jew, wherever they can find them.”

“They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can,” the prime minister continued. “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.”

Now, here’s the cartoon:

cartoon

It’s not entirely clear what Bell is trying to communicate, but the suicide belt (presumably made up coffins containing dead Palestinians) on Netanyahu strongly suggests that he – not, of course, Hamas – is the one responsible for killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza.

Such visual anti-Israel agitprop, which neatly serves the cause of Palestinian extremists, is par for the course at the Guardian.  

The Hamas propaganda strategy is of course dependent on Western media groups playing along, not only by highlighting every tragic Palestinian civilian death, but by also pretending that such casualties are not in fact the result of Hamas’s cynical strategy of using human shields and other tactics meant to maximize the number of casualties.

It’s difficult to understand how the Guardian can continually demonize the democratic Jewish state, while parroting the narrative of reactionary extremists, and yet, evidently, still fancy themselves a liberal institution.   

Guardian op-ed mocks “claims” of Hamas use of human shields

 The strap line of a recent Guardian op-ed by  (a blogger at Lenin’s tomb) says it all.

oped

Here’s the entire post:

They hid at the El-Wafa hospital.

They hid at the Al-Aqsa hospital.

They hid at the beach, where children played football.

They hid at the yard of 75-year-old Muhammad Hamad.

They hid among the residential quarters of Shujaya.

They hid in the neighbourhoods of Zaytoun and Toffah.

They hid in Rafah and Khan Younis.

They hid in the home of the Qassan family.

They hid in the home of the poet, Othman Hussein.

They hid in the village of Khuzaa.

They hid in the thousands of houses damaged or destroyed.

They hid in 84 schools and 23 medical facilities.

They hid in a cafe, where Gazans were watching the World Cup.

They hid in the ambulances trying to retrieve the injured.

They hid themselves in 24 corpses, buried under rubble.

They hid themselves in a young woman in pink household slippers, sprawled on the pavement, taken down while fleeing.

They hid themselves in two brothers, eight and four, lying in the intensive burn care unit in Al-Shifa.

They hid themselves in the little boy whose parts were carried away by his father in a plastic shopping bag.

They hid themselves in the “incomparable chaos of bodies” arriving at Gaza hospitals.

They hid themselves in an elderly woman, lying in a pool of blood on a stone floor.

Hamas, they tell us, is cowardly and cynical.

To Seymour, it seems that these ‘claims’ are all nothing but dishonest Israeli hasbara.

Evidently, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri was lying when he said the following:

Similarly, the following video of Grad rocket launchers discovered next to a school in Beit Hanoun, Gaza is evidently staged.

Video evidence of Hamas fighters firing from within civilian homes in Gaza is also nothing but propaganda.

And, what of this clip of terrorists in Gaza using an ambulance to escape? Again, evidently nothing but savvy Israeli PR.

 

The Washington Post’s dispatch from the Gaza front included a first hand account of rockets being moved into a mosque during Thursday’s five-hour humanitarian ceasefire, and accounts of Hamas leaders using Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as a de facto headquarters, were also seemingly both lies.

First hand accounts of underground terror headquarters, including storage areas for rockets, bombs, and other weapons built under the densely populated civilian neighborhood of Shejaiyya, are also untrue.

Further, declassified aerial photos showing Hamas rocket launchers under mosques and at hospitals in Gaza were also fabrications.

You see, for Seymour, the ‘claim’ that Hamas is “cowardly and cynical”, and routinely uses human shields - as part of their strategy of using the deaths of Palestinians to garner international sympathy - is all Zionist propaganda. 

Don’t believe your eyes.

Believe the Guardian.

Guardian cartoon mocks IDF efforts to avoid civilian casualties

The IDF routinely drops leaflets, sends recorded messages and places calls and text messages (and often sends ‘knock on the door’ warning shots) in advance of attacks in Gaza, warning civilians to distance themselves from Hamas weapons and operatives – and to take refuge in designated safe areas – as part of efforts to minimize civilian harm.  (The IDF also often delays or calls off attacks if civilians don’t heed such warnings.)

Hamas on the other hand has admitted to using Palestinians as human shields to prevent Israeli attacks on rocket launchers and terror tunnels (often hidden beneath civilian structures, such as homes and even mosques), often telling their civilian population to stay in their homes prior to an attack.  Such Hamas tactics represent a tacit acknowledgement that the IDF goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming civilians, and can be expected to proceed with much greater caution when engaging in an attack on Hamas terrorists if civilians are in the vicinity.  

Also, as Jeffrey Goldberg noted: Dead Palestinians also represent a crucial propaganda victory “for the nihilists of Hamas”.

In stark contrast to Hamas’s cruel indifference to the suffering of their own population, it’s unclear if any army in the world goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties as the IDF.

No matter. Much of the media – and other ‘commentators‘ – have been on a crusade to obfuscate this clear moral divide.

To boot, a ‘First Dog on the Moon cartoon which appeared in the Guardian on July 21st:

headline

dog on the moon

 

  • As we’ve noted, contrary to the suggestion in the frames, Palestinians called by the IDF are informed of designated safe zones where they should flee. 
  • Contrary to what the text in the cartoon implies, the homes in question are targeted because they’re used by Hamas to store weapons (such as rockets) or other instruments of war. Indeed, reading the cartoon, you’d be forgiven for believing that the IDF launches missiles at civilian homes for no particular reason.
  • Finally, note the second to the final frame, which really says it all: Israeli warnings to civilians are summed up as a threat that the IDF will kill Palestinian children if they (presumably Hamas fighters) choose “to fight back”.

The cartoon is a lie, graphic agitprop which represents yet another example of the foreign media running interference for the reactionary, antisemitic extremist group currently waging a war of their own choosing against the Jewish State.

 

Jenin redux? Guardian omits reports of rockets, terror tunnels in Shejaiya

Here’s the scare headline accompanying a Guardian report by Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont on July 20th:

scare headline

The article centers on a few recent battles in Gaza, including a large anti-terror operation in the northern city of Shejaiya.

Regarding Shejaiya, we are told the following:

All morning, terrified people ran from their homes, some barefoot and nearly all empty-handed. Others crowded on the backs of trucks or rode on the bonnets of cars in a desperate attempt to flee. Sky News reported that some had described a “massacre” in Shujai’iya. Witnesses reported hearing small arms fire inside Gaza, suggesting gun battles on the streets. Heavy shelling continued from the air and sea.

Bodies were pulled from rubble amid massive destruction of buildings in the neighbourhood. Masked gunmen were on the streets.

Late on Saturday evening, Israeli forces hit eastern areas of Gaza City with the heaviest bombardment yet of the 13-day war. The assault was most intense in the direction of Shujai’iya, where an orange glow of flames lit up the sky. At one stage, artillery and mortar rounds were hitting the outskirts of the city every five seconds. Later in the night jets flew low passes over the coast.

The Guardian saw families squeezing into the back of what few vehicles were available as streets further east were pounded by artillery fire.

Columns of people, many of them too scared, angry and shocked to speak, approached down the main road to the east and from side streets even as small arms fire was audible in the distance.

One of those fleeing was Sabreen Hattad, 34, with her three children. “The Israeli shells were hitting the house. We stayed the night because we were so scared but about six in the morning we decided to escape,” she said.

“But where are we supposed to go? The ambulances could not enter and so we ran under shell fire.”

Three other men pass by in a hurry clutching bedding in their arms. Asked what they had seen they would only answer: “Death and horror.”

Many of those escaping Shujai’iya made for Gaza’s central Shifa hospital, which was engulfed by chaotic scenes and ambulances ferrying the dead came in a steady steam, among them a local TV cameraman, Khaled Hamad, killed during the overnight offensive, wheeled out wrapped in a bloody plastic shroud.

Those who had fled congregated in corridors, on stairs and in the hospital car park. Staff put mattresses on floors to accommodate the injured, while some patients were being evacuated.

Aish Ijla, 38, whose leg was broken by shrapnel, said: “We live very close to the border. When the shells started we couldn’t leave the house. It is two storeys. The shells were hitting the upper floor so we all moved downstairs. There were 30 of us in the house. Then the shrapnel started hitting the door.

“It was quiet for a moment and we decided to run. But as we were on the road a shell landed near me, breaking my leg. I told the family to go on with out me and carried on going for a little bit and stopping then going on. Eventually an ambulance reached me after two hours.”

An accompanying article by Sherwood and Beaumont included this about Shujai’iya:

Late on Saturday evening, Israeli forces hit eastern areas of Gaza City with the heaviest bombardment yet of the 13-day war. The assault was most intense in the direction of the Shujai’iya neighbourhood, where a constant orange glow of flames lit up the sky.

As the assault continued into Sunday morning, Israel disclosed that four of its soldiers had been killed in the ground offensive.

At one stage, artillery and mortar rounds were hitting the outskirts of the city every five seconds. Later in the night, jets flew low passes over the coast.

As Sunday dawned, a thin pall of smoke hung over the seafront while tank fire echoed through deserted streets.

Large numbers of residents of the areas under attack fled the outskirts for Gaza’s city centre, while residents called radio stations pleading for evacuation.

In total, the Guardian provided 625 words to the battle in Shuja’iya, and failed to include even a word about the reason for the military assault, despite the fact that Israeli officials were quick to post the following information:

This civilian neighborhood in Gaza is home to extensive Hamas infrastructure. In only 13 days, Hamas has fired over 140 rockets from this neighborhood into Israel.

IDF soldiers have found 10 openings to terror tunnels in Shuja’iya. These tunnels are used for infiltrating Israel, smuggling weapons, and launching rockets at Israeli civilians.

The IDF warned civilians in Shuja’iya to evacuate the area many days before striking the terror infrastructure within it. Dropping leaflets, making phone calls and sending text messages are just some of the many actions the IDF has been taking to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.

Hamas knows that Israel is reluctant to attack areas with many civilians. The terrorist organization fights from within civilian population and uses them as human shields.

Hamas ordered the residents of Shuja’iya to ignore the IDF’s warning and stay in the neighborhood. By doing so, Hamas put them in the line of fire.

Despite the fact that many of the residents ignored warnings and didn’t leave the neighborhood, the IDF continued to operate in the most precise and surgical way possible, targeting only terrorists and their infrastructure.

The IDF agreed to the Red Cross’ request for a two-hour humanitarian window in Shuja’iya. This humanitarian window was opened despite the threats emanating from the neighborhood, including continuous Hamas rocket fire at Israel.

Hamas broke the humanitarian window when firing at Israel during the two-hour period. Still, the IDF agreed to the Red Cross appeal to extend the Humanitarian widow by another hour.

In light of the selective reporting and unsubstantiated accusations of massacres, you should recall that for two weeks in April of 2002, the Guardian ran wild tales of an Israeli massacre in the West Bank city of Jenin — a massacre that didn’t happened.

As Harry’s Place wrote in 2012, on the 10th anniversary of the non-massacre:

On the heels of a thirty-day Palestinian suicide bombing campaign in Israeli cities which included thirteen deadly attacks (imagine thirteen 7/7’s in one month), Israel embarked on a military offensive in the West Bank.  The fiercest fighting in this offensive occurred in the refugee camp just outside the West Bank town of Jenin, the launching point for 30 Palestinian suicide bombers in the year and half previous (seven were caught before they could blow themselves up; the other 23 succeeded in carrying out their attacks).  In this battle, which lasted less than a week, 23 Israeli soldiers were killed as well as 52 Palestinians, of whom at most 14 were civilians (there is some marginal dispute about that last figure).

[Seumas] Milne referred to ‘hundreds’ killed, ‘evidence of atrocities,’ and ‘state terror.’  Not to be outdone, Suzanne Goldenberg reported from Jenin’s ‘lunar landscape’ of ‘a silent wasteland, permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite.’  She found ‘convincing accounts’ of summary executions, though let’s be honest and concede that it’s not generally difficult to convince Goldenberg of Israeli villainy.  In the next day’s report from Jenin, a frustrated Goldenberg reported that the morgue in Jenin had ‘just 16 bodies’ after ‘only two bodies [were] plucked from the wreckage.’  This didn’t cause her to doubt for a moment that there were hundreds more buried beneath or to hesitate in reporting from a Palestinian source that bodies may have been transported ‘to a special zone in Israel.’  Brian Whitaker and Chris McGreal weighed in with their own equally tendentious and equally flawed reporting the following week.

Only on the tenth consecutive day of breathless Jenin Massacre reporting did Peter Beaumont report on detailed Israeli accounts refuting the massacre accusations, though predictably this was presented as part of an Israeli PR campaign rather than as conclusive proof.  Two days later, Beaumont conceded that there hadn’t after all technically really actually been a massacre but then proceeded to repeat a handful of falsities as fact all over again.  Without a doubt, though, the most memorable article the Guardian published on Jenin was its April 17 leader ‘The Battle for the Truth.’  The high dudgeon prose included the following sentences: ‘Jenin camp looks like the scene of a crime’; ‘Jenin smells like a crime’; ‘Jenin feels like a crime’; ‘Jenin already has that aura of infamy that attaches to a crime of especial notoriety’; and, unforgettably, the assertion that Israel’s actions in Jenin were ‘every bit as repellent’ as the 9/11 attacks in New York only seven months earlier.

No correction or retraction has ever been printed for this infamous editorial.

On the contrary, though mounting evidence emerged that the whole massacre calumny was a fabrication (never adequately reported by the Guardian), twice over the following year this leader article was obliquely cited — once in condemning another Israeli action by comparing it to the ‘repellent demolition of lives and homes in Jenin’ and most outrageously under the headline ‘Israel still wanted for questioning.’

Whilst it’s too soon to tell if subsequent Guardian articles on the battle in Shuja’iya will be modeled after their Jenin Lie, the galling omissions in the first two reports by Beaumont and Sherwood suggest, at the very least, the media group has learned nothing from past journalistic failures.

Related articles

The Guardian moves Modi’in to Palestine

The Guardian published a letter on July 18th by an Israeli from Modi’in, a city in the center of the country where this writer also lives.

west bank

However, Modi’in is fully within Israel, west of the Green Line. (Within the greater Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut municipality, Maccabim is located in what’s known as no-man’s land, but Mr. Youngerwood does not live in Maccabim, but in Modi’in proper.)

Interestingly, Modi’in was correctly placed in Israel by the BBC in a July 18th article in which Mr. Youngerwood was quoted in a story featuring Palestinian and Israeli views on the current IDF ground operation.

bbc

In fairness, the Guardian’s latest geographic “editing error” is of course small potatoes as, you may recall, they used to claim that Tel Aviv was Israel’s capital. 

Read Adam Levick’s latest article at The Jewish Chronicle

Here are the first few paragraphs of Adam Levick’s latest article at The Jewish Chronicle:

On Monday night, Israel formally accepted the Egyptian proposed ceasefire calling for an end to “all hostilities” between Hamas and Israel from the following morning.

Though the IDF halted its military operations, Hamas rejected calls to stop attacks and fired dozens of rockets at Israeli cities during the declared truce. After six hours of continued attacks, Israel announced it would resume its military operation and began attacking Hamas targets.

Despite this straightforward series of events, some media outlets found a way to obscure Hamas’s culpability, with the Guardian leading the pack. Even when the paper acknowledged that Hamas was still firing rockets, they somehow concluded that the “ceasefire was holding” and later managed to blame Israel’s eventual retaliation for causing it to collapse.

After the paper was criticised on Twitter, Guardian deputy editor Phoebe Greenwood defended the coverage, arguing in one Tweet that since Hamas never agreed to the ceasefire, their rocket attacks did not represent a violation of its terms.

Read the rest of the article here.

Peter Beaumont in Gaza: 20 articles, 18,800 words & not one report on Hamas human shields

The Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Peter Beaumont was interviewed by Anshel Pfeffer of Ha’aretz  about the tragic killing of four Palestinian children on the Gaza Beach yesterday.

(Though the IDF is still investigating the incident, it appears as if one of the missiles which hit the beach was fired on a Hamas target, while the second one was mistakenly fired on what was believed to be a group of Hamas members fleeing the scene, but were actually Palestinian children.)

The beach harbor is a civilian area with a hotel nearby (The Al-Deira) where many foreign journalists (including Beaumont) have been staying during the war. Washington Post reporter William Booth’s report about the incident noted that “it is not unusual for militants to launch rockets from sites” near the hotel. 

More recently, in a Guardian article published today, July 17th, Beaumont himself even noted that the shipping container on the beach which was hit by the IDF in the attack which caused the boys’ deaths had been used by Hamas:

A witness who identified himself only as Abu Ahmed said the boys had been scavenging for scrap metal when the first shell hit a nearby shipping container used in the past by Hamas security forces.

This passage is actually quite unique, as it represents the first time Beaumont has acknowledged (though only implicitly) this widely reported tactic (acknowledged by Hams leaders themselves) of using civilians as human shields. This tactic involves Hamas purposely placing combatants and military facilities used to stage attacks on Israel in areas populated by civilians (such as mosques, schools, hospitals, etc.) and telling Palestinians to “remain in their houses if they are about to be bombed” when warned by the IDF in advance of an attack.

In 20 reports (and over 18,886 words) filed by Beaumont since the start of hostilities on July 8th (see links at the end of this post), most of which highlighted (often in heartbreaking detail) civilian casualties in Gaza, he has never contextualized his accounts of Palestinian deaths by informing readers about Hamas’s cynical use of this illegal tactic.  

He not only hasn’t filed a report on the use of human shields (a war crime under international law), but there are actually only four references to the term (in any context) in his 20 reports, two passages which simply quote Israeli officials who “claim” that Hamas uses this tactic, and two additional references which blandly characterize the independent actions of Palestinian activists.

First, Beaumont used the following sentences in two separate articles:

Israel has said it is acting in self-defence against rockets that have disrupted life across much of the country. It also accuses Hamas of using Gaza’s civilians as human shields

In two other articles, Beaumont used the term to dryly describe the actions of Palestinians, without even suggesting that this tactic is used and actively encouraged by Hamas.

Early on Wednesday morning, Israel dropped leaflets and delivered warnings by phone and text that tens of thousands of residents of two Gaza City neighbourhoods, Zeitoun in the south and Shujai’iya in the east, should evacuate their homes before planned strikes and head to the city centre. Among those ordered to leave were the patients of a rehabilitation hospital. But the hospital’s director, Basman Ashi, said everyone would remain and that foreign volunteers had arrived to serve as human shields.

In the most serious single incident, seven Palestinians including two children were killed and about 25 wounded in an attack on a house in the Khan Younis area in south Gaza. Residents said the house belonged to the family of a Hamas member and the casualties occurred when the property came under attack for the second time. After the first strike people had gathered on the roof of the house as “human shields“, hoping their presence would deter a second strike, the residents said. The Israeli military made no immediate comment about the incident.

In one article, Beaumont actually seems to dismiss the Israeli ‘claim’ that Hamas uses human shields:

For its part Israel has long alleged that the militants “hide” among the civilian population, but what is clear is that targets have included homes and public streets as well as missile sites and buildings associated with Hamas.

As Jeffrey Goldberg argued early in the war:

Dead Palestinians represent a crucial propaganda victory for the nihilists of Hamas. It is perverse, but true. It is also the best possible explanation for Hamas’s behavior, because Hamas has no other plausible strategic goal here.

This propaganda strategy, however, is dependent on Western media groups playing along, not only by highlighting every tragic Palestinian civilian death, but by also pretending that such casualties are not in fact the result of Hamas’s cynical strategy of using human shields and other tactics meant to maximize the number of casualties.

Among the most active participants in Hamas’s scheme to fool the West is Peter Beaumont.

 Links to all of Beaumont’s articles referenced in this post:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/israel-and-hamas-agree-short-ceasefire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/witness-gaza-shelling-first-hand-account

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/israeli-air-strikes-target-hamas-ceasefire-fails

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/israel-resumes-air-strikes-hamas-rejects-ceasefire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/gaza-city-conflict-brief-ceasefire-peace-war

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/egypt-calls-for-israel-hamas-ceasefire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/gaza-home-destroyed-israel-shati

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/israel-drone-launched-gaza-ashdod

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/gaza-war-futile-neither-side-can-win

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/thousands-flee-gaza-israel-bombing

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/israeli-commandos-gaza-beach-palestinians

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/disabled-palestinians-unable-escape-israeli-air-strike

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/israel-air-strikes-gaza-foreign-criticism-netanyahu

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/ramadan-gaza-life-under-missile-fire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/palestinian-death-toll-rises-israel-escalates-aerial-airstrikes-assault-gaza

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/israel-offensive-intensifies-hamas-gaza-missiles-rockets

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/hamas-goes-to-war-gaza-israel-ceasefire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/israel-palestine-gaza-strip-offensive-air-strikes-tel-aviv-airport

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/israel-steps-up-gaza-offensive-possible-ground-invasion

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/israel-pounds-gaza-against-hamas

Guardian editor defends Hamas’s right to kill Israelis, AGAIN.

During the last war in Gaza two years ago, Guardian associate editor Seumas Milne defended the Palestinian ‘right’ of armed resistance, while arguing that Israel, as the ‘occupying power’, had no such right to defend itself against Hamas (It’s Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves, Nov. 20, 2012).

“So Gazans are an occupied people and have the right to resist, including by armed force (though not to target civilians), while Israel is an occupying power that has an obligation to withdraw – not a right to defend territories it controls or is colonising by dint of military power.

Now, here is the relevant passage from Milne’s latest op-ed, published today (Gaza: this shameful injustice will only end if the cost of it rises, July 16th) at the Guardian:

So the Palestinians of Gaza are an occupied people, like those in the West Bank, who have the right to resist, by force if they choose – though not deliberately to target civilians. But Israel does not have a right of self-defence over territories it illegally occupies – it has an obligation to withdraw.

The only difference between the passages in the two op-eds relates to Milne’s expanded right of resistance. Note that in 2012 it was only Gazans who had the right to engage in acts of terrorism, while in 2014 both Gazans and West Bank Palestinians enjoy the inalienable ‘right’ to kill Israelis. 

However, Milne is consistent in both op-eds with regard to one thing: Israel has no right to defend itself from Hamas terror. 

While Milne’s justification for the intentional killing of Israelis is not surprising given his history of praising anti-imperialist “resistance movements” across the globe, the mere fact that his latest polemic is consistent with his broader political orientation certainly doesn’t make it any less morally repulsive.

Guardian logic used to blame Israel for ceasefire violation in one tweet

If you’ve been following our recent posts, you’re aware that the Guardian live blog on the Gaza War posted two entries a few hours ago that somehow managed to blame Israel for breaking the ceasefire which took effect this morning.

They made this claim despite the fact the dozens of rockets were fired at Israeli cities by Hamas since the time of the ceasefire, while Israel (who had accepted the ceasefire) held its fire for six hours until finally retaliating after it was clear that the Islamist group had no intention of standing down.  (As we noted, US Secretary of State John Kerry forcefully condemned Hamas earlier in the day for violating the terms of the agreement.)

Well, a Guardian deputy editor named Phoebe Greenwood doubled down on the Guardian claim a few hours ago, and the rhetorical somersault she employed to defend the indefensible was truly something to behold.

Here it is, along with a response (above Greenwood’s Tweet) by Yiftah Curiel, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London:

tweet

As one commentator suggested, Greenwood’s argument goes something like this.

  1. Israel accepted the ceasefire and held its fire for six hours, hoping Hamas would do the same.
  2. Hamas ignored the ceasefire and continued firing dozens of rockets at Israeli towns.
  3. Israel finally retaliated against Hamas rocket attacks which showed no signs of winding down.
  4. Ergo, Israel violated the ceasefire.

This is of course the time when we typically employ a rhetorical flourish, encapsulating the substance of the post in a few pithy lines.  

However, on this occasion, given the jaw-dropping nature of the logic used by Greenwood, we find ourselves for once truly speechless.

 

Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent takes aim at ‘hasbara goons’

Here’s a Tweet from earlier today by the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Peter Beaumont:

Though we’re not sure what his Tweet was specifically referring to, the word ‘hasbara’ (a Hebrew word which merely means ‘explaining’) is often used by anti-Israel activists to characterize, in a pejorative manner, those who defend Israel online.

Tellingly, if you Google the term “Hasbara Goons”, the first two results show posts from the hate site, Mondoweiss.

goons

Interestingly, Beaumont received some flack from his swipe at pro-Israel activists, in the following replies:

reply

Beaumont perhaps should refer to the Guardian’s Social Media Guidelines for Journalists:

The Guardian has created a set of guidelines for staff on the use of blogging, tweeting and the use of social media in order to maintain editorial standards and help create effective communities on the web.

staff are asked to remember the former editor CP Scott’s famous dictum that “comment is free, but facts are sacred” by not blurring facts and opinions, and to exemplify the Guardian’s community standards in contributions.

The community standards, which Guardian journalists are asked to exemplify, include 10 guidelines, and summarizes their suggestions as follows:

In short:

- If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems. 
Don’t be unpleasant. Demonstrate and share the intelligence, wisdom and humour we know you possess.
Take some responsibility for the quality of the conversations in which you’re participating. Help make this an intelligent place for discussion and it will be.

In addition to being shrill and unprofessional, it seems clear that Beaumont’s Tweet was thoroughly inconsistent with his own company’s community standards. 

Palestinian Envoy more honest than the Guardian on Hamas ‘war crimes’

The Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Peter Beaumont reacted angrily to rather mild criticism directed towards him, and his paper’s coverage of the war, in a Times of Israel report by Raphael Ahern.  Beaumont protested Ahern’s piece in a series of Tweets yesterday, which included the following:

However, it’s the Guardian who has consistently be “suppressing” the news, by filing report after report on Palestinian suffering in Gaza while erasing the context of Hamas war crimes – both what the Islamist terror group commits by use of Palestinian human shields, and those committed each time they fire a rocket at Israeli civilians.

Though the media group never tires in characterizing every Jewish home built across the 1949 armistice lines as “illegal under international law” (despite the specious legal logic of such an argument), their reports which note rocket fire from terrorists in Gaza – prior to and during the current conflict – never explain to readers that each deadly projectile aimed at civilians is “illegal under international law”, and constitutes a war crime. 

Interestingly, the Palestinian Envoy to the UN Human Rights Council, Ibrahim Khreishesh, was much more honest during an interview on Palestinian Authority TV on July 9th, per a clip translated by MEMRI. 

 

Since 2005 – the year Israel evacuated every last Jew from the coastal strip – more than 8,000 rockets have been fired by Gaza terrorists at residential communities in Israel.  Thus, as the Palestinian Envoy himself acknowledged, each and every such attack represents a war crime – an uncontroversial fact which the Guardian continues to ‘suppress’.