21:16 Police: Sec_
JPost.com opinioncolumnists Square circles, aerodynamic pigs and two states By MARTIN SHERMAN 03/29/2012 21:39 Into the Fray: When somebody says they want to kill you, you should believe them. By REUTERS
Goals: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Method: Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic… in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished.... Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine.
– Fatah Constitution
Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it…. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight [kill] the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
– Hamas Charter
When somebody says they want to kill you, you should believe them.
– A Holocaust survivor
In his endeavor to rebut my recent column “Disputing Dershowitz,” Alan Dershowitz displays a regrettable tendency to embrace the self-contradictory and the disingenuous, rather than concede error.
Disappointing Dershowitz
His “The Case Against the Left and Right One- State Solution” (Huffington Post, 21/3/2012) is a disappointing mixture of ad hominem jibes, highly selective – and questionable – statistics, “straw-man” tactics, and misrepresentation of the issues raised and the arguments articulated in my article.
The notion of the feasibility of a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs is not only demonstrably one of the most devastatingly dangerous threats to the physical existence of the Jewish state, but also to its democratic character and international legitimacy – however counter-intuitive that may appear initially to some.
Accordingly, I feel duty-bound to devote my coming columns to a comprehensive and categorical repudiation of any claims – empirical and conceptual – to the contrary.
In this article, I will present a general overview of the fallacious underpinnings of the two-state approach, deferring a detailed refutation of the flawed arguments, offensive incriminations and misplaced hysterics aired by its proponents for next week.
Which part of ‘Itbach al-Yahud’ don’t they get?
Strange isn’t it? When threats of murderous intent emanate from Tehran, you can take them seriously – even express concern at to their gravity – without being “excommunicated” from polite mainstream company. But dare to suggest that the murderous intent expressed by the Palestinians – indeed, the proven murderous deeds perpetrated by them – should be taken seriously, and may actually have practical policy implications, you are instantly dismissed as an “extremist naysayer” or “religious radical.”
True, Iranian ambitions presently seem to be a bit more “wholesale” in scope relative to the hitherto “retail” dimensions of Palestinian endeavors, but that reflects limitations on current capabilities rather than any benevolence of heart.
One can only shake one’s head in bafflement and wonder which part of the clearly-stated two-stage component in the Palestinians’ interpretation of the two-state principle escapes well-meaning folk like Dershowitz; and which part of their undisguised intention of Itbach al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jew) they don’t quite grasp.
And darkness descended upon the land
Up until the early 1990s, the notion of a Palestinian state was anathema in mainstream Israeli politics – vehemently condemned by all except radical left-wing margins of society. Indeed, contacts with the PLO were prohibited and punishable – in fact, punished – by law.
Then came Oslo, and darkness descended upon the land – in the name of “enlightenment.”
Support for the two-state solution became the imperative credential for acceptance into the bon-ton circles of Israeli society.
Intellectual tyranny was imposed on public and academic discourse. No heretical doubts were brooked as to the validity of what was deemed masterful statesmanship and the practical fulfillment of a “noble” (or is that “Nobel”?) aspiration.
For anyone with the temerity to break ranks, sanctions were swift and severe – both personally and professionally. Party-pooping was a hazardous taboo to violate. After all, why ruin the carnival of festivities? Prestigious prizes were awarded in Oslo (where else?), visions of a “New Middle East” were bandied at international conferences, and historic handshakes photographed on White House lawns.
Soon, however, “the rubber hit the road,” so to speak; the tragic consequences of the childlike Oslowian naiveté were upon us. The juvenile euphoria evaporated and gave way to the horrific reality of carnage in the nation’s streets, restaurants, buses and cafes – just as the “extremist naysayers” had cautioned.
Disingenuous intellectual peacocks
When the Oslo process emerged as the harbinger of a dramatic discontinuity in the evolution of Zionist endeavor, ushering in the previously spurned notion of Palestinian statehood as an acceptable–even preferred–policy option, there were proponents who promised it would provide great benefits, and opponents who warned it would wreak great harm.
Almost two decades late,r the results are in. The prevailing realities constitute almost an exact reflection of the ominous prognoses of the opponents; and the diametric antithesis of the rosy predictions of the proponents. Indeed, the Oslowian initiative has precipitated virtually all the deadly dangers that were foretold – but none of the enticing benefits that were pledged.
It is difficult to conceive of greater professional failure than that of the pro-Oslo advocates. Disregarding virtually every principle of political science, international relations, and other relevant disciples, to conform to the dictates of political correctness, they wrought precisely the dismal reality their “extremist” opponents warned they would.
As Prof. Efraim Karsh trenchantly points out: Had such professional misconduct occurred in the natural or physical sciences there would have doubtless been serious consequences: e.g. the collapse of a bridge following phoney engineering calculations dangerous side effects hidden during the development of a new medicine…. Yet it would seem that when it comes to the social sciences or the humanities… the researcher can escape punishment for the worst kind of malpractice.
Yet unchastened by the calamitous dimensions of the debacle, the authors/endorsers of this predictable –and predicted – tragedy still adjudge themselves to be the voices of far-sighted wisdom and clear-sighted reason.
Disdainfully dismissive of any dissenting voices, who point out how disastrously destructive their misguided conduct has been, they steadfastly deny any error and continue peddling the same noxious wares in marginally different wrappings.
Instead of bowing their heads in shame and slinking off in disgrace – as quietly and inconspicuously as possible – to the outer fringes of public life, they strut around like intellectual peacocks – as if their unmitigated failure conferred on them some kind of moral superiority.
Futile, unnecessary, detrimental
In his previously mentioned attempt to rebut my negation of the two-state principle, Dershowitz claims that unless Israel accedes to the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will lose its international legitimacy as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.
This is a shallow and superficial contention. It is not only conceptually unsound – although the tyrannical muzzling of debate has prevented rational discussion of other compelling alternatives that are both Zionist and democracy-compliant – but it also flies in the face of facts.
After all, apart from a brief flush of international approval immediately following the signature of the Oslo Accords, Israel’s international standing has deteriorated alarming since declaring its willingness to establish a Palestinian state. (The causal mechanism which made this regrettable result inevitable will be elaborated in Part II next week.) This is what makes the entire two-state initiative so infuriating.
Not only did it prove completely futile, it was totally unnecessary – worse, gravely counterproductive, with international delegitimization of Israel today far more pervasive and virulent than it was before the Oslowian misadventure!
Indeed, though the mainstream media – both at home and abroad – have been meticulous in obscuring or misrepresenting the facts, Israel was doing very well in the pre-Oslo years under the recalcitrant Yitzhak Shamir, who steadfastly rejected any notion of a two-state approach.
Setting the record straight
By 1992, the (first) Intifada had virtually petered out, leaving the Palestinians exhausted – among other things, by internecine fratricide with as many perishing at the hands of their kinfolk as were killed by the Israeli security forces. It certainly had no inhibiting effect on the economy. Fueled by the burgeoning immigration from the former-USSR, economic growth soared, exceeding 7 percent in 1992.
While it is true that economic growth was also impressive immediately following the signing of Oslo I, it fell quickly as the Palestinian violence spiraled upwards. The average growth in the three years immediately preceding Oslo I (6.6 % in 1990-92) was higher than that in the three years immediately following it. (6.1% in 1994-96), and easily outstripped the growth in the three years following Oslo II (3.4 % in 1996-99). (Significantly the higher pre-Oslo growth was achieved without the massive budget deficit incurred in the post-Oslo years by the Rabin-Peres government that brought the country to the brink of economic disaster averted, only by the drastic austerity measures of the first Netanyahu government.)
Diplomatically, the country was far from being isolated. Israel scored dramatic pre-Oslo successes, establishing full diplomatic ties with Russia (in October, 1991, a quarter century since the USSR cut ties in 1967 ), India and China (both in January 1992). Strangely, these countries –comprising 40% of the world’s population –appeared singularly unperturbed by the Shamir government’s resolute “rejectionist” stance on Palestinian statehood.
True, following the Oslo Agreements, a spate of countries did forge relations with Israel. But this was far more symbolic than substantive – with all due respect to exotic locations such Andorra, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Burundi, Cape Verde, Croatia, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Rwanda, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe – which comprised the overwhelming bulk of the post-1993 additions to the list of counties with diplomatic relations with Israel.
Moreover, one might well be excused for wondering whether the coveted goal of relations with Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe – which, with their proud tradition of human rights, understandably felt morally constrained from establishing formal ties with the Jewish state previously – represented a diplomatic coup worth the thousands of Israelis murdered and maimed by Palestinian violence that the Oslowian quest for two-state “solution” ushered in?
An increasingly oxymoronic endeavor
As the notion of a two-state resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is exposed as an endeavor increasingly detached from reality, its proponents seem to be advancing increasingly preposterous arguments – in a desperate attempt to avoid admission of error.
As it becomes increasingly clear that they can no longer sustain the illusion of the continued validity of their proposed paradigm by any reality- based corroboration, they turn to ignoring, inventing – even inverting – inconvenient facts.
They have thus been coerced into postulating a virtual reality, inhabited by imaginary Palestinians, docile and cuddly, who are presumed to be ready to accept – not only as a short-term stratagem, but on sincere and permanent basis – conditions rejected repeatedly and resolutely by their real-world counterparts. Of course, no persuasive rationale is ever provided to explain why or how such a dramatic metamorphosis in Palestinian attitudes would occur.
Indeed, bereft of any factual foundations, the “two-staters” have tried to transform their disproven political credo into axiomatic political dogma, a self-evident truth, unencumbered by the need for shouldering any bothersome burden of proof.
Likewise, bereft of any doctrinal consistency, “two-staters” embrace self-contradictory – or disingenuous–provisos.
Thus, when Dershowitz conditions the imperative for the establishment of a Palestinian state on “secure borders” for Israel, is he really unaware that the two cannot be reconciled; that the minimal territorial pre-requisites for “secure borders” make a Palestinian state untenable as a sovereign entity?
Is he really so woefully ignorant, or is he willfully ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have already firmly refused far-more magnanimous offers made by Barak and Olmert, who in their obsessive and irresponsible pursuit of an unattainable two-state vision were prepared to forego any semblance of secure borders?
Ignorance or ignominy?
There is nothing enlightened or democratic about support for a two-state solution. It will save neither the Zionist dream nor Israeli democracy. Quite the contrary, it will consign both to oblivion. Only political naiveté or social narcissism can account for further support for this failed concept. It is the hallmark not of the erudite, informed liberal but of either abject ignorance about prevailing realities or ignominious pandering to political faddism.
For a further elaboration – and corroboration – of this ongoing case against the two-state delusion, watch this space!
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The One Jewish State Solution
The One Jewish State Solution
In light of the events currently happening in the Middle East, the two state solution has lost its justification. I am in favor of Palestinians having rights. But I am also in favor of Jews, my own people, having rights as well. If the West Bank of the Jordan River becomes a state, all Jews will be excluded from the area. They will have no rights, as they have no rights, or much reduced rights and security, in the adjoining Arab lands. If on the other hand, Israel were to annex the West Bank, the Arabs would retain most, if not all, of their rights. So here we are balancing no rights for Jews against some or complete rights for Arabs. As a Jew, I most support the Jewish claim. As a liberal person who must balance the benefits and disadvantages of the two groups, I must also support the Jewish claim. As a believer in democracy and equality for all and who prefers English common law to Sharia law, I must also support the Jewish claim.
Now let us realistic look at the probable nature and result of a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan. (There is already a mostly Palestinian state of the east side of the Jordan River.). The disappointing results of the Arab Spring would probably also come to Palestine. Islamism and sharia law would probably dominate, bringing poverty to the Palestinians and perhaps terrorism to the rest of the world. Since one of the major objectives of the PLO remains to destroy Israel, and since their media continues to demonize Israel, it is likely that a serious war will occur. If Israel knows it will lose, it will use its nuclear weapons to defend itself. So in my opinion, a Palestinian state, other than Jordan, will probably bring war to the Middle East and perhaps to the rest of the world.
The other question is whether Jewish culture and religion have anything to offer the world. If the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) comes under Israeli rule, Arab and Muslim culture will not be lost. If Israel is defeated and their population killed or expelled, Judaism and Jewish culture may be lost and Jews may again become the most persecuted people in the world. If you believe that Judaism and its people have something to offer, than Israel must be protected. If not, then of course it is not worth fighting for.
In summary, I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria by Israel in order to preserve an important culture, (the same way we protect animals from extinction), as a measure of fairness between two competing groups, and as a method to avoid a potentially catastrophic war.
In light of the events currently happening in the Middle East, the two state solution has lost its justification. I am in favor of Palestinians having rights. But I am also in favor of Jews, my own people, having rights as well. If the West Bank of the Jordan River becomes a state, all Jews will be excluded from the area. They will have no rights, as they have no rights, or much reduced rights and security, in the adjoining Arab lands. If on the other hand, Israel were to annex the West Bank, the Arabs would retain most, if not all, of their rights. So here we are balancing no rights for Jews against some or complete rights for Arabs. As a Jew, I most support the Jewish claim. As a liberal person who must balance the benefits and disadvantages of the two groups, I must also support the Jewish claim. As a believer in democracy and equality for all and who prefers English common law to Sharia law, I must also support the Jewish claim.
Now let us realistic look at the probable nature and result of a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan. (There is already a mostly Palestinian state of the east side of the Jordan River.). The disappointing results of the Arab Spring would probably also come to Palestine. Islamism and sharia law would probably dominate, bringing poverty to the Palestinians and perhaps terrorism to the rest of the world. Since one of the major objectives of the PLO remains to destroy Israel, and since their media continues to demonize Israel, it is likely that a serious war will occur. If Israel knows it will lose, it will use its nuclear weapons to defend itself. So in my opinion, a Palestinian state, other than Jordan, will probably bring war to the Middle East and perhaps to the rest of the world.
The other question is whether Jewish culture and religion have anything to offer the world. If the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) comes under Israeli rule, Arab and Muslim culture will not be lost. If Israel is defeated and their population killed or expelled, Judaism and Jewish culture may be lost and Jews may again become the most persecuted people in the world. If you believe that Judaism and its people have something to offer, than Israel must be protected. If not, then of course it is not worth fighting for.
In summary, I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria by Israel in order to preserve an important culture, (the same way we protect animals from extinction), as a measure of fairness between two competing groups, and as a method to avoid a potentially catastrophic war.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
March on Jerusalem
March on Jerusalem, March 30, 2012
A group of Palestinians and their fellow travellers, estimated to be in the thousands, are planning to meet on the borders of Israel on March 30th to march to Jerusalem. In Canada a supportive protest by Palestinian House and other pro-Palestinian groups will be held on Friday March 30th outside the Israeli consulate. It is a protest against the Judaisation of Jerusalem. The Global March to Jerusalem North America web site describes the objective of the march as to “Join thousands of Palestinians and supporters from all over the world who will be marching on March 30, 2012 to oppose Israel apartheid and ethnic-cleansing, to demand access to Jerusalem for all peoples, and to uphold Palestinian rights under international law, including refugees’ ”right of return.”
These stated objectives include opposing Israel apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Gaza has implemented ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Jews. Israel has done neither to its Arab citizens. The Palestinians have never had a city for all peoples. Cities under Palestinian rule have always excluded Jews. International law, by the San Remo Conference, says that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan) belong to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Most importantly a right of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would destroy the Jewish nature of Israel.
It is to be noted that
1. Any mass attempt to cross Israel’s borders is a show of strength and hostile aggression. In no way should it be considered a peace march or a protest march.
2. Palestinians, especially women and children, will die. This is intentional
and necessary for Palestinian propaganda purposes.
3. Reporters will get most of their information from the Palestinians
4. Palestinian ambulances will carry weapons and otherwise help in inappropriate
ways.
Here is an imagined copy of the Reuters report on the March 30th 2012 march on Jerusalem.
It doesn’t really matter that the event has not occurred. Similar events have occurred
so many times that the Reuters reporting and the actions of the Palestinians and
the Israelis are quite predictable. The march will be described as a protest, not as an organized attempt to annex or destroy the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If Israel fails to stop Hamas’ hordes from entering Israel it will be a first step in an attempt to overthrow the Jewish State of Israel.
The Reuters “Report”
On the evening of Thursday March 30th Palestinians began lining up at the Israeli
Border in the Egyptian Sinai. They waved Palestinian flags and had signs reading
“Jerusalem is ours.”, “We hate the State of Israel.” and “jihad to Jerusalem”. Generally the mood was happy, like people out for a picnic. By morning protesters had reached the Israeli border. The brash and heartless Israeli soldiers ordered them to stop and then fired indiscriminately into the crowd, injuring many and killing three young women and a schoolboy of 14. Onlookers were heard to cry – “Murderers”, “How can they kill women and children?”, and “We want revenge.”
It is estimated that 50 people were injured in the massacre. Judge Judy Cohen of New York said that Israel had used excessive force and that the circumstances did not call for
Israel to use live ammunition. Israel apologized for the personal damage and agreed to pay compensation to the victims. The U.N. Human Rights Commission will be holding meetings on the matter and calling for sanctions against Israel.
A group of Palestinians and their fellow travellers, estimated to be in the thousands, are planning to meet on the borders of Israel on March 30th to march to Jerusalem. In Canada a supportive protest by Palestinian House and other pro-Palestinian groups will be held on Friday March 30th outside the Israeli consulate. It is a protest against the Judaisation of Jerusalem. The Global March to Jerusalem North America web site describes the objective of the march as to “Join thousands of Palestinians and supporters from all over the world who will be marching on March 30, 2012 to oppose Israel apartheid and ethnic-cleansing, to demand access to Jerusalem for all peoples, and to uphold Palestinian rights under international law, including refugees’ ”right of return.”
These stated objectives include opposing Israel apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Gaza has implemented ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Jews. Israel has done neither to its Arab citizens. The Palestinians have never had a city for all peoples. Cities under Palestinian rule have always excluded Jews. International law, by the San Remo Conference, says that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan) belong to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Most importantly a right of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would destroy the Jewish nature of Israel.
It is to be noted that
1. Any mass attempt to cross Israel’s borders is a show of strength and hostile aggression. In no way should it be considered a peace march or a protest march.
2. Palestinians, especially women and children, will die. This is intentional
and necessary for Palestinian propaganda purposes.
3. Reporters will get most of their information from the Palestinians
4. Palestinian ambulances will carry weapons and otherwise help in inappropriate
ways.
Here is an imagined copy of the Reuters report on the March 30th 2012 march on Jerusalem.
It doesn’t really matter that the event has not occurred. Similar events have occurred
so many times that the Reuters reporting and the actions of the Palestinians and
the Israelis are quite predictable. The march will be described as a protest, not as an organized attempt to annex or destroy the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If Israel fails to stop Hamas’ hordes from entering Israel it will be a first step in an attempt to overthrow the Jewish State of Israel.
The Reuters “Report”
On the evening of Thursday March 30th Palestinians began lining up at the Israeli
Border in the Egyptian Sinai. They waved Palestinian flags and had signs reading
“Jerusalem is ours.”, “We hate the State of Israel.” and “jihad to Jerusalem”. Generally the mood was happy, like people out for a picnic. By morning protesters had reached the Israeli border. The brash and heartless Israeli soldiers ordered them to stop and then fired indiscriminately into the crowd, injuring many and killing three young women and a schoolboy of 14. Onlookers were heard to cry – “Murderers”, “How can they kill women and children?”, and “We want revenge.”
It is estimated that 50 people were injured in the massacre. Judge Judy Cohen of New York said that Israel had used excessive force and that the circumstances did not call for
Israel to use live ammunition. Israel apologized for the personal damage and agreed to pay compensation to the victims. The U.N. Human Rights Commission will be holding meetings on the matter and calling for sanctions against Israel.
Abbas' Resignation
Welcoming Abbas' Resignation
Think out of the box! If Abbas dissolves the P.A. it will leave Judea and Samaria with no leadership. Control and responsiblity for that area will be left to Israel. This will give Israel an opportunity to annex the area without serious opposition of the neighboring countries. At the moment they are more concerned with Iran and the Arab Spring. Any annexation will be safer before Iran acquires nuclear weapons and before the Islamic leaders of the Arab Spring gain complete power. The result of annexation will be a better chance for peace in the area. It will be the one Jewish state solution set up in accordance with international law as defined by the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference
Think out of the box! If Abbas dissolves the P.A. it will leave Judea and Samaria with no leadership. Control and responsiblity for that area will be left to Israel. This will give Israel an opportunity to annex the area without serious opposition of the neighboring countries. At the moment they are more concerned with Iran and the Arab Spring. Any annexation will be safer before Iran acquires nuclear weapons and before the Islamic leaders of the Arab Spring gain complete power. The result of annexation will be a better chance for peace in the area. It will be the one Jewish state solution set up in accordance with international law as defined by the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference
Letter to NP re De Souza - March 15th
De Souza is right. The police need watching. After many incidents of abuse and
lack of enforcement by the police, we, the people of Ontario in particular, have lost faith in police use
of common sense in who they arrest and whom they carefully watch to ensure there
is no violent conflict that would reflect badly on them. At the same time the courts have shown
a leniency to wrong-doers that is simply beyond imagination. Harper's anti-crime bill is designed
to solve the latter problem. Hopefully his next task will be to solve the administration of the police
problem.
lack of enforcement by the police, we, the people of Ontario in particular, have lost faith in police use
of common sense in who they arrest and whom they carefully watch to ensure there
is no violent conflict that would reflect badly on them. At the same time the courts have shown
a leniency to wrong-doers that is simply beyond imagination. Harper's anti-crime bill is designed
to solve the latter problem. Hopefully his next task will be to solve the administration of the police
problem.
letter to NP re Balsillie
Islamism, yes. Capitalism, no
The times do change! Funds pour into our universities from Saudi Arabia and their Islamist
friends to fund University Middle East Departments. It is naive to think that foreign doners
will not exercise some under-the-table influence. That is their traditional way of operating.
In addition special university rates are given by our Ontario government to foreign students
who may or may not be chosen by their native countries for their abilities to influence
Canadian university thought and procedure. University teachers haven't objected to these
potentially very harmful influences on our universities and yet they object to being influenced by a Canadian capitalist
think tank that is up-front about its desire to partially control how its money is spent. It seems that the
university teachers are already so brain washed with leftist anti- Canadian values that Balsillies' influence
is not only required but can only be beneficial to our universities.
The times do change! Funds pour into our universities from Saudi Arabia and their Islamist
friends to fund University Middle East Departments. It is naive to think that foreign doners
will not exercise some under-the-table influence. That is their traditional way of operating.
In addition special university rates are given by our Ontario government to foreign students
who may or may not be chosen by their native countries for their abilities to influence
Canadian university thought and procedure. University teachers haven't objected to these
potentially very harmful influences on our universities and yet they object to being influenced by a Canadian capitalist
think tank that is up-front about its desire to partially control how its money is spent. It seems that the
university teachers are already so brain washed with leftist anti- Canadian values that Balsillies' influence
is not only required but can only be beneficial to our universities.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Letter to Toronto Sun - re Reuters - page 34
Half-truths by Reuters
It pains me to see the Sun repeat the Reuters news clips that are sent from Gaza.
They speak about "a familiar pattern" of violence. That is true, but it hides the whole truth -
that the violence is always begun by Hamas' militants. In this case it hides the truth that over 100 rockets shelled Israeli cities and citizens before Israel responded. The article also omitted to say that the Palestinian rockets usually kill no Israelis because Israel has prepared its citizens with bomb shelters and protective rooms in each apartment or building. Hamas on the other hand has provided no protection for its citizens and allows the militants to fire rockets from near civilian buildings, virtually forcing Israel to inadvertantly kill Palestinian civilians.
Without this background and with the heading reading "Israeli attacks kill boy, militant", it appears that Israel is the aggressor. It is not. At the minimum the Sun heading should read: "Palestinian boy killed in counteract" or "100 Palestinian rockets yield counterattack and death of Palestinian boy".
It pains me to see the Sun repeat the Reuters news clips that are sent from Gaza.
They speak about "a familiar pattern" of violence. That is true, but it hides the whole truth -
that the violence is always begun by Hamas' militants. In this case it hides the truth that over 100 rockets shelled Israeli cities and citizens before Israel responded. The article also omitted to say that the Palestinian rockets usually kill no Israelis because Israel has prepared its citizens with bomb shelters and protective rooms in each apartment or building. Hamas on the other hand has provided no protection for its citizens and allows the militants to fire rockets from near civilian buildings, virtually forcing Israel to inadvertantly kill Palestinian civilians.
Without this background and with the heading reading "Israeli attacks kill boy, militant", it appears that Israel is the aggressor. It is not. At the minimum the Sun heading should read: "Palestinian boy killed in counteract" or "100 Palestinian rockets yield counterattack and death of Palestinian boy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)