Hidden in the final sentence of a Guardian/Reuters report on Sept. 20th, Egypt to host Gaza talks between Palestinian factions, on upcoming reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas and subsequent indirect talks between Hamas and Israel, is a remarkable accusation – albeit one not surprising to those familiar with Hamas‘s widespread human rights violations against their own civilians.
Former AP correspondent Matti Friedman, in his essay at Tablet on media coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, explained that reporters “working in the international press corps here understands quickly that what is important in the Israel-Palestinian story is Israel”, whose “every action and flaw is analyzed, criticized and aggressively reported”, while, alternately, “Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate”.
The Guardian coverage of Israel and the greater region perfectly reflects this principle.
However, there were widely reported public executions in Gaza much more recently than the 90s.
- During the 2012 war (Pillar of Defense), Hamas “publicly put an end“ to at least 7 suspected ‘collaborators’.
- During the 2008-2009 war (Cast Lead), Hamas executed dozens of Palestinians in the streets, again for suspected ‘collaboration’.
- And, during their violent coup in Gaza in 2007, Hamas carried out at least eight known summary executions, mostly for ‘treason’.
So, it clearly is not accurate to claim that the recent public executions in Gaza were the first since the 1990s.
After our communication with Indy editors, they deleted the sentence which claimed that these recent executions were the first in the enclave since the 90s.
For those unfamiliar with the British ‘journalist’ Mira Bar-Hillel (who contributes to the Independent), here are a few facts about her views on Jews and Israel:
- She complained that Jews smear people unfairly with the charge of antisemitism to “gag into submission any critic of Israel”.
- She evoked Nazi Germany in characterizing Israeli racism and IDF military actions in Gaza.
- She accused British Jews (collectively) of ‘bombing Gaza’.
- She bizarrely argued that British Jews don’t criticize Israeli actions in Gaza out of fear of being “ex-communicated” from the Jewish community. (She later admitted that she had no evidence to back this claim up.)
- She has admitted to being “prejudiced against Jews”. (See her exact words)
- She believes that “the message” of Jews controlling America is “entirely true” and “increasingly so”, and that Jewish lobbyists appear to be picking up some of the ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and using them.
Now, the latest.
Here are two tweets from today by Bar-Hillel, which included a graphic purporting to represent an “IDF tweet”:
Here’s Bar-Hillel’s first tweet, with the “IDF tweet” attached.
And, then, 8 minutes later she asks a few more of her Zionist nemeses to justify the ‘IDF tweet':
We’re not sure if anyone out there, except Bar-Hillel and her motley crew of retweeters, could possibly believe in the authenticity of this “IDF” tweet “acknowledging” child murder, but, briefly:
It was clearly photoshopped from this real IDF tweet from Aug. 21:
And, the graphic was almost certainly taken from this IDF tweet:
Mira Bar-Hillel wants so badly to believe that Israel murders children that she was willing to believe this absurd hoax tweet.
Tell us again why Bar-Hillel continues to pen op-eds for British newspapers (on the topics of Israel and antisemitism!) and lands interviews with the BBC and Sky News, on similar topics, as a ‘representative’ of the British Jewish community.
- Indy journo Mira Bar-Hillel Tweets about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (cifwatch.com)
- Sky News asks admitted anti-Semite her views on the rise of UK antisemitism! (cifwatch.com)
- Revealed: Emails undermine Mira Bar-Hillel’s smear of UK Jewish community (cifwatch.com)
- Indy contributor Mira Bar-Hillel accuses British Jews of bombing Gaza (cifwatch.com)
- Indy’s Mira Bar-Hillel complains on the BBC about Jews and CiF Watch trolls! (cifwatch.com)
On Monday, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed to extend a temporary ceasefire in Gaza by 24 hours so they could continue to conduct more talks on a long-term truce. The five-day ceasefire was set to expire at midnight Israeli time.
On Tuesday, at roughly 15:45 Israeli time (less than 16 hours into the 24 hour extension), terrorists in Gaza violated the ceasefire when they fired three rockets at Israel, causing large explosions near Beersheva. (This represents the eleventh cease-fire that Hamas either violated or rejected since the war began.)
Forty-five minutes later, at 16:30, there were reports of further Gaza rocket attacks on Ashdod and Ashkelon.
At 16:34, the IDF began retaliating in response to the Palestinian rocket barrage.
However, here’s the Guardian misinformation that we were all anticipating:
Print edition headline and strap line:
Here’s the online edition:
Israeli negotiators withdrew from peace talks in Cairo aimed at forging a durable ceasefire in the six-week war in Gaza on Tuesday night as rocket fire and air strikes resumed hours before the latest truce was due to expire.
Israeli officials said 10 rockets were fired from Gaza, the first of which were launched about eight hours before the truce was due to end at midnight
Then, we learn what the head of the Palestinian negotiating team claimed:
Palestinian negotiators blamed the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire on Israel’s failure to take Cairo-based negotiations seriously. Azzam al-Ahmad, the head of the Palestinian delegation, claimed that Israel had always intended to break the truce, and had used the firing of three rockets from Gaza on Tuesday afternoon as an excuse for an already-made decision to sabotage the talks.
So, according to Al-Ahmad, Hamas may have technically violated the ceasefire, but the rocket attacks from Gaza were cynically exploited by Israel, who had already made the decision to “sabotage the talks”.
Then, we learn what Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri claimed about the ceasefire.
The Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, denied knowledge of the rocket fire which Israel said had breached the truce. “We don’t have any information about firing rockets from Gaza. The Israeli raids are intended to sabotage the negotiations in Cairo,” he told reporters.
Whilst the Palestinian lead negotiator tacitly admitted that his side violated the ceasefire, all the official Hamas spokesman could muster was a denial of ‘knowledge’ concerning Palestinian rocket fire.
So, despite the timeline of events clearly indicating that Hamas violated the ceasefire, and one implicit acknowledgement by a Hamas negotiator that they indeed broke the ceasefire, the Guardian still isn’t willing to blame the Islamist terror group.
Guardian obfuscation at its finest.
Last month we published a post based on Thomas Wictor’s fisking of a International Solidarity Movement (ISM) video purporting to show the ‘killing’, by an unseen IDF sniper, of Salem Khalil Salem Shemaly in the Gaza City neighborhood of Shejaiya (on Sunday, July 20th) as he was looking for missing relatives.
Despite the inconsistencies and seeming fabrications in the the highly edited ISM video, the story was reported throughout the mainstream media – at the New York Times, Newsweek, Times of London, Daily Mail, Vice News and elsewhere.
Today, shortly after we cross-posted Wictor’s latest post on the ‘killing’of Shemaly (which fisked a Channel 4 News report on the ISM video), we noticed that, per the list of Gaza war casualties, Shemaly’s ‘dead’ body was retrieved two full days after the videotaped ‘killing':
Salem Khalil Salem Shemaly, 22, Sheja’eyya – Gaza (Killed Sunday, Body Located Tuesday)
Why would it take two days to retrieve Shemaly?
Are we to believe that the Palestinian rescuers (in the yellow vests) and the ISM activists filming the incident were all afraid to retrieve Shemaly out of concern for their own lives?
If so, how can this concern be reconciled with the fact that they were extremely close Shemaly at the time of the alleged shooting, and yet weren’t touched by the ‘IDF sniper’?
Here’s a close up of the ISM crew filming Shemaly’s ‘death’.
Are we to believe that, shortly after the moment captured in this frame, the ISM activists and Palestinian rescuers decided against retrieving the body, turned around and simply fled the scene?
Why won’t ISM publicly release the full unedited video, so that these questions – and those posed by Thomas Wictor – can be answered?
- Orla Guerin’s parting shot breaches BBC editorial guidelines (bbcwatch.org)
The following is an edited version of a post published by Thomas Wictor
Someone asked me if I’d seen Channel 4 News’s report “What Really Happened to Salem Shamaly?” I hadn’t. Now I have, and I believe that it should make reporter Inigo Gilmore the laughingstock of the news profession. But of course it won’t. It’s a followup to the fake Gaza sniper video I wrote about on July 21, 2014. I’m stunned that a supposedly reputable news outfit would put out such propaganda, but it did.
First, the Channel 4 News video.
Here’s the original International Solidarity Movement (ISM) video for your reference.
At 4:18 in the Channel 4 News video, Inigo Gilmore says, “The first shot that hit him is not caught on camera.”
It most certainly is. At 2:23 in the fake sniper video, you hear a gunshot and its echo. Mohammed jostles the camera to add crappy Blair Witch Project drama, and then you see this.
Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott, in an Aug. 18th column on the Hamas ‘child sacrifice’ advert featuring Elie Wiesel, wrote the following in the context of suggesting that his paper’s decision to publish the ad was not a wise one.
whatever the intention, the biblical language, the references to child sacrifice, all evoke images of that most ancient of antisemitic tropes: the blood libel. The authors may believe that they have steered a careful course by aiming these matters at an organisation, Hamas, rather than all Palestinians, but the association is there. If an advertisement was couched in similar terms but the organisation named was the IDF rather than Hamas, I can’t imagine the Guardian would run it – I certainly hope it wouldn’t. I think that’s the issue.
Of course, the difference between charging soldiers of the Jewish State with a blood libel (the historic allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially children, and use their blood for religious rituals, part of a broader narrative regarding Jewish “murder-lust”) vs leveling such charges at Hamas is that there is no history of racist anti-Palestinian blood libel tropes.
However, there’s another claim in Elliott’s critique of the ad which is even more dubious:
Each advertisement has clearly got to be decided on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind not just specific criteria but the context of the times as well. I entirely support the argument that freedom of expression means the freedom to offend. On that basis I don’t think it was wrong to run an advertisement that expressed a viewpoint, with which the Guardian has no sympathy, about the alleged use of human shields by Hamas, which the organisation has strenuously denied. But there are always limits.
So, Hamas has “strenuously denied” the charge? Really?
Contrary to Elliott’s claim, the official Hamas spokesman couldn’t possibly have been clearer about the use of human shields: “We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy“.
- Hate emerges from beneath the surface: Antisemitism in the UK (July 2014) (cifwatch.com)
- London Times rejects anti-Hamas advert for fear it could upset their readers (cifwatch.com)
- The Anti-Jewish Riots Have Exposed Hamas (algemeiner.com)
- Owen Jones, and the Left’s blind spot over antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
- Britain’s The Guardian Blocks Dershowitz Ad on Hamas Tactics (algemeiner.com)
- Buried by the Guardian: Hamas War Crimes (cifwatch.com)
Cross posted from Barry’s Shaw’s blog, The View from Israel
The foreign media in Gaza have been accused of biased reporting, often bordering on the cynical and, sometimes, even cowardly.
Faced with the fear of what might happen to them, many abandoned any presence of journalistic ethics and simply regurgitated whatever Hamas gave them, or whatever they saw from their restricted vision, often ignoring, of course, the rocket fire coming from outside their hotel windows .
However, what’s infinitely worse is a media outlet like Sky News which, from the safe distance of their London studio, still puts out emotional Hamas propaganda while taking gratuitous swipes at Israel.
This occurred on August 10the when they repeatedly broadcast a segment on a seven-year old Palestinian girl who reportedly had been paralyzed in an Israeli air strike.
The girl is heard saying “We were sitting at home when we heard a noise. So we went down the stairs.” What noise was this? Could it have been the “Knock on the roof” pre-strike warning that this house had been cited as a terror target by the IDF intelligence? What’s this girl’s family name? Is it among the names of leading Hamas terrorists? This was partially confirmed by the girl known as Mata when she said “Me and my mother were injured, and we knew if we stayed like this we would die. But my mother stayed at home and she died.” Did her mother knowingly act as a human shield (or sacrifice) for Hamas? We don’t know. The reporter didn’t ask or investigate this.
The report stressed that there are only three hospitals worldwide capable of treating anyone in her condition, a claim which seemed quite dubious, as there are numerous Israeli hospitals of international reputation that regularly treat Palestinians with such injuries.
The Sky News report suggested that Matya was being prevented from leaving Gaza by Israel.
But, this is simply not true!
COGAT top representative, Guy Inbar, told me that a request from Gaza had been made and accepted by COGAT on the same day, July 26, and that final details had been requested by COGAT to prepare her exit.
Nothing more was heard from the other side.
It certainly appears that Hamas has cynically played a propaganda game for weeks over this little girl. They invited members of the press into Shifa Hospital to hear her story, rather than expedite her release for treatment.
There is an excellent fully staffed field hospital set up by the IDF on the Gaza border ready to received patients from Gaza. Only problem is that Hamas physically threatens and prevents people from getting to this facility. This also was not mentioned by Sky.
The IDF Spokesman, Peter Lerner, tweeted Sky News offering to give them information but he apparently failed to get a response. Neither did I when I emailed Sky News a list of questions on this incident and their coverage.
It is still far from certain that a Sky reporter ever met or spoke to the girl. Were they there at the Gaza hospital, did they question, did they ask for Israeli response, or did they simply put out the story as presented to them by Hamas?
My sources in the IDF and with COGAT were never contacted by Sky News concerning this incident.
COGAT was, however, later contacted by Palestinian health officials and they are coordinating with them (and also with the World Health Organization) to have the girl removed from Gaza as soon as a new request is received together with all the relevant documents and information. She will be removed first to Jerusalem and then on to a hospital where she can receive the best of care.
Moreover, COGAT has facilitated every request received by people needing to leave Gaza for serious medical cases, one hundred and fifty in number, throughout this current Gaza conflict.
As for Sky News, I have yet to receive a response to my numerous complaints.
Barry Shaw is the Special Consultant on Delegitimization Issues to the Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya Academic College. He is also the author of ‘ISRAEL RECLAIMING THE NARRATIVE.’
These videos include just a small fraction of the widely available evidence attesting to Hamas’s use of human shields, a topic we’ve posted about continually in the context of the Guardian’s near silence in the face of such egregious violations of international law by the Islamist terror group.
Longer clip of France24 broadcast seen in the first compilation video:
Longer NDTV clip seen in the first compilation video:
Gaza Bishop claims Hamas used church to fire rockets.
IDF evidence of Hamas firing from a Gazan school:
- Hamas Releases First Video Glorifying Fighters in Gaza War (VIDEO) (algemeiner.com)
- After Leaving Gaza, Foreign Reporters Reveal Hamas War Crimes (algemeiner.com)
- Finnish Journalist Who Confirmed Hamas Using Al Shifa Hospital to Launch Rockets Dismayed Viral Coverage Ignores Her Intended Narrative (algemeiner.com)
- How the International Community Facilitates Hamas’ Use of Human Shields (algemeiner.com)
Here are the indisputable facts about what occurred today – a timeline of events that even the Guardian isn’t disputing.
Israel supported an extension of the 72 hour ceasefire that was in effect while both sides negotiated a long-term agreement in Cairo, and which was going to expire at 8AM this morning.
After warning that they wouldn’t agree to extend the ceasefire, Hamas carried though on the threat and, shortly after 8AM, began firing dozens of rockets at Israel.
Israel then responded to the Hamas rocket fire – which injured several Israelis – by targeting terror targets in Gaza.
Here’s how the Telegraph framed it:
The headline isn’t just misleading. It’s a baldfaced lie.
Perhaps no phrase more accurately embodies the moral relativism which began capturing the zeitgeist during the 60s and 70s than ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter‘.
If Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, aptly echoed the political derivative of this principle when he asserted that U.S. and Soviet leaders “have similar dreams and aspirations about the most fundamental issues”, then his boss’s career after being rejected by the American electorate would come to embody the truism that dangerous ideas which begin on the intellectual margins can slowly become conventional wisdom among political leaders and the opinion elite.
Indeed, Carter’s history of shilling for the terror group Hamas is perfectly consistent with his perverse empathy for dictators and tyrants around the globe in the name of ‘peace’ while, conversely, demonizing and smearing progressive democratic states like Israel.
Such an ideological persuasion of course makes him a perfect candidate to pen an op-ed at the home address in the UK for such moral inversions, The Guardian.
“Gaza blockade must end“, by Carter and Mary Robinson (former UN high commissioner for human rights) begins with a premise which employs a tortured casuistry – suggesting that the blockade is the cause of the conflict between Israel and Hamas and not the consequence of Hamas violence – that was, tellingly, endorsed recently by the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black.
After citing erroneous casualty figures for the war, presumably from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, Carter and Robinson blame Israel for deliberately obstructing Hamas’s “promising move towards peace”, citing the reconciliation agreement among the Palestinian factions which, they claim, included the rejection of violence.
However, they fail to note that Hamas emphatically rejected this commitment to non-violence after the unity government was announced, and that that the group demonstrated this insistence upon retaining their ‘right of violent resistance’ by reportedly orchestrating the abduction and murder of three Israeli teens.
Carter and Robinson then insist that “there is no humane or legal justification” for how the IDF pulverized “large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools and hospitals”, which follows the dominant narrative among the far left of ignoring the undeniable, widespread evidence that such structures were targeted (in compliance with international law) because Hamas was illegally using them to house and fire weapons – consistent with the group’s human shield policy.
Then they finally pivot to the issue they likely realized would galvanize fellow Hamas apologists, ‘recognition':
“US and EU should recognize that Hamas is not just a military force but also a political one“.
It cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognising its legitimacy as a political actor – one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people – can the west begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons. Ever since the internationally monitored 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine, the west’s approach has manifestly contributed to the opposite result.
Jimmy Carter believes that Hamas will lay down its arms with the right political concessions, demonstrating the capacity of self-styled humanitarians to blame the West for all Arab political failures, delude themselves into accepting the benign nature of even the most dangerous extremists, and whitewash the reactionary, racist principles which guide such movements.
And, the Guardian will never cease legitimizing voices which demonize the nation-state of the Jewish people and running interference for even the most loathsome and malevolent antisemitic movements.
To get up to speed on Mira Bar-Hillel – a journalist who contributes to the ‘progressive’ British newspaper, The Independent, and whose sage insight about Israel was recently solicited by The BBC and Sky News - and her well-documented antisemitism, read this and this.
After doing so, you can now better understand the following Tweets by Bar-Hillel.
It started with this Tweet from someone named Emma Isitt, “quoting” a fictitious Israeli who evidently ‘confirmed’ that antisemites have been right all along.
Spoiler: even antisemitic extremists know that this quote is a Pakistani hoax.
Then the Twitter exchange:
“Hoax or not”, says the Indy columnist, “the message is entirely true, and increasingly so”.
Here are the next series of exchanges:
Does Bar-Hillel believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
“Look at the facts”, replied the Indy columnist, “and you will too”.
More Tweeters attempt to determine if the Indy columnist really is defending the Protocols.
Is she only joking?
So, to recap: Bar-Hillel believes that “the message” of Jews controlling America is “entirely true” and “increasingly so”, and that Jewish lobbyists appear to be picking up some of the ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and using them.
Thanks for clarifying that for us, Mira.
- Indy contributor Mira Bar-Hillel accuses British Jews of bombing Gaza (cifwatch.com)
- Indy’s Mira Bar-Hillel complains on the BBC about Jews and CiF Watch trolls! (cifwatch.com)
- Antisemitic reporter Mira Bar-Hillel pens op-ed (on antisemitism!) for The Independent (cifwatch.com)
- BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ airs falsehoods on Gaza medicine shortage (and the ramblings of Bar Hillel) (bbcwatch.org)
For Israelis who work professionally to promote accurate reporting about Israel and the Middle East, one of the most vexing dynamics (beyond the false claims, distortions, and fabrications) is a media narrative about our their country which often has little if any resemblance to reality.
Indeed, we are all too accustomed to Guardian journalists imputing to Israel the absolute worst motives – a place Jonathan Spyer refers to as the “mythical Israel”, “a place of uninterrupted darkness and horror, in which every human interaction is ugly, crude, racist, brutal” – while evoking endless sympathy for the most malevolent actors in the region.
Such fantastical ideas about the Jewish State and its enemies has certainly colored coverage of the current war in Gaza, and this post represents a break from the fisking, criticism and analyses of their reporting that you’re accustomed to. Instead, we will merely provide a very brief account of the war and its outcome – intuitive takeaways from the month-long conflict that the Guardian won’t report.
Hamas’s war was defined by the widespread use of human shields, and countless other war crimes
Nearly all of the 3,360 rockets fired by terrorists in Gaza during the war were aimed at Israeli civilian communities – each launch representing an individual war crime.
- Firsthand accounts have been published attesting to the existence of underground terror headquarters, storage areas for rockets, bombs and other weapons built under densely populated civilian neighborhoods in Gaza.
- On three occasions, rockets were found in UNRWA schools.
- Aerial photos have shown Hamas rocket launchers under mosques and at hospitals and right next to UN buildings.
- Videos have been released showing weapons (and rockets) fired from civilian homes, hotels and near foreign journalists.
- Hamas fighters have illegally used ambulances to escape.
- More recently, the IDF captured a Hamas manual which actually explains the benefits of using human shields.
The IDF conducted itself in an ethical manner
Despite media claims (based on information from the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry) that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed in the war were civilians, new reports and analyses now suggest that roughly half of the casualties were combatants from Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other terror groups. Col. Richard Kemp has contextualized such a low (one-to-one) ratio of civilians to combatant deaths in past Israeli wars by noting there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths (that’s three civilians for every one combatant killed) in NATO led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
IDF measures to limit the number of Palestinian casualties included text messages, phone calls and radio messages in Arabic warning occupants to leave, and air-dropped leaflets with maps showing safe areas. When warnings went unheeded, Israeli aircraft dropped non-lethal explosives (‘knock on the door‘ procedures) to warn that an attack is imminent.
In addition to the field hospital Israel set up on the northern Gaza border to treat injured Palestinians, during Operation Protective Edge 1800 trucks entered the crossings between Israel and Gaza, carrying food, medical equipment, clothing, water, and fuel.
In a post last month, we asked the following question to the media – or to anyone else who questions Israel’s conduct during the war:
Name one army in the world that goes to greater lengths than the IDF to protect civilians during war.
We’re still waiting for a response.
Israel fought a just and morally necessary war against an antisemitic extremist group.
To those in the media whose political ideology is inspired by vapid clichés about the futility of armed conflict, almost no war – especially those in which Israel is engaged – is morally justified, and neither facts nor logic can persuade them.
However, those who don’t identify with the Guardian Left, and understand the harsh lessons of the 20th century (and indeed of Jewish history), would see a very stark moral contrast: a battle between the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas (a homophobic, misogynist, antisemitic extremist group dedicated to the mass murder of Jews) and Israel, the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.
Hamas’s mission, as Jeffrey Goldberg succinctly put it, is not ‘narrowly’ to destroy Israel, but to “end Jewish history”. Every rocket that is fired, every attempted tunnel infiltration into Israeli communities, and every effort to inculcate their citizens with the values of jihad is designed for this sole purpose.
Israel Defeats Hamas
Though we can expect Guardian analyses which obfuscate this painfully obvious fact, it’s difficult to understand how anyone who has followed events unfold in Gaza and Israel over the last month can avoid concluding that Israel emerged victorious over Hamas.
While much of the UK media has strangely framed the relatively low number of Israeli deaths (64 soldiers and 3 civilians) as an indictment on the disproportionate military response – itself inspired in part by a bizarre moral logic which “turns suffering into the only measure of justice” -
the job of any army is to minimize casualties on its own side, and the IDF quite capably carried out this task.
Though Hamas fired 3300 rockets at Israel, only 116 – due in large measure to interceptions by the Iron Dome – hit populated areas (3.45%). In contrast, 475 rockets fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters reportedly landed within the Gaza Strip.
The IDF destroyed nearly every known terror tunnel in the Strip – tunnels, by the way, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, and thousands of tons of ‘humanitarian’ concrete and other construction materials.
The IDF also reportedly destroyed 1,678 rockets launching capabilities, 977 command and control centers, 237 ‘militant’ wing government faculties, 191 weapon storage and manufacturing facilities, 144 training and militant compounds, and 1,535 additional terror sites.
Finally, Channel 2′s diplomatic correspondent Udi Segal stressed that we should remember that Hamas rejected a ceasefire proposal before the Israeli ground invasion, when it still had its tunnel infrastructure, its rocket capacity was still largely intact, and it still had a large degree of political legitimacy with the international community as part of the Palestinian unity government. Today, Segal observed, as it meekly negotiates in Cairo for a long-term truce, it has none of that.
Here’s an Aug. 3rd headline (left column) from the international news section of the British paper, The Telegraph, accompanying an article by their Jerusalem correspondent Robert Tait which is quite possibly the most misleading headline we’ve come across during the war.
However, the online version of the article (which was accompanied by a different headline) demonstrates the print headline is especially misleading, as the article actually revolves around an announcement by Israel that the army had begun staging “its first withdrawal” from Gaza, after the IDF had nearly reached its goal of destroying Hamas’s terror tunnels.
The print headline was presumably based on a solitary passage in the over 800 word article in which the Israeli Prime Minister reportedly vowed that continuing Hamas rocket fire would be met with further Israeli strikes:
the Israeli prime minister said “all options” remained on the table and threatened to make Hamas “pay an intolerable price” if it continued firing rockets into Israel.
Of course, an accurate headline might have read:
Israel announces withdrawal from Gaza.
But, why should Telegraph editors be bothered with such messy journalistic principles as accuracy, fairness, and context when they can instead continue feeding their readers the desired UK media narrative about the conflict?