Covering Up For Fatah

This week, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to a security arrangement calling for Israeli troop pullbacks in Gaza and Bethlehem, in exchange for a crackdown by Palestinian security services to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians.

Many Palestinian groups — including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction — all issued statements rejecting the deal, while vowing to continue their campaign of terror. Palestinian groups once again prove that when presented with the option of regaining land, they choose instead the path of violence and terror.

However, HonestReporting’s survey reveals that most major media mentioned ONLY Hamas and Islamic Jihad as rejecting the truce — while inexplicably failing to mention the third rejectionist party, Arafat’s Fatah.

The media has a sordid history of protecting Arafat and covering up his terror activities. This case is a blatant omission of fact.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Fatah’s military wing, the Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades, vowed that “the jihad will continue” and that Fatah-Aksa will carry out “massive attacks” against Israeli soldiers and civilians — “and if there is a necessity in the next phase, there are no borders for the resistance.”

===== THE WORST OFFENDERS =====

THE NEW YORK TIMES: Serge Schmemann completely omits mention of any Palestinian opposition to the deal — though he details right-wing Israeli opposition. (A previous Schmemann article noted Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not Fatah)
http://nytimes.com/2002/08/21/international/middleeast/21MIDE.html

Comments to:
letters@nytimes.com

* * *

THE INDEPENDENT: Phil Reeves writes a classic case of moral equivalence: “The agreement’s chances of success were already being undermined by strong opposition from extremists on both sides.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=326258

The “Israeli extremists” Reeves refers to is one Israeli party threatening to leave the government coalition. The Palestinian extremists Reeves refers to are all the major Palestinian militias rejecting the agreement outright.

Comments to:
newseditor@independent.co.uk

===== TWO HONEST REPORTS =====

Of the major news agencies, we spotted only two who included Fatah in the list of deal rejectionists.

BBC reports: “The security deal, struck on Sunday, has been rejected by key Palestinian elements, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and even from within Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement, whose members said it was a poor substitute for full Israeli withdrawal.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2205149.stm

BOSTON GLOBE: “Several Palestinian factions, including a militia linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s Fatah group, yesterday declared that they were against the initiative.”
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/232/nation/Israelis_exit_Bethlehem_in_new_pact+.shtml

===== THE FATAH-LESS PACK =====

HonestReporting encourages members to write to the following news agencies and ask why they omitted Fatah from the rejectionist list.

HonestReporting also encourages members to monitor your local media to see how they reported Fatah’s rejection of the Israeli-PA agreement.

* * *

ASSOCIATED PRESS notes Hamas, but not Fatah.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20020820/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_6332

Comments to:
feedback@ap.org

* * *

BALTIMORE SUN notes Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not Fatah.
http://www.sunspot.net/news/bal-te.mideast20aug20.story?coll=bal%2Dpe%2Dasection

Comments to:
letters@baltsun.com

* * *

CNN notes Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not Fatah.
http://cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/20/mideast/index.html

Comments to:
allfeedback@cnn.com

* * *

GUARDIAN (UK) notes Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but not Fatah.
http://guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,777418,00.html

Comments to:
letters@guardian.co.uk

* * *

LA TIMES notes Hamas and PFLP, but not Fatah.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mideast20aug20005111.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dworld

Comments to:
letters@latimes.com

* * *

LONDON TIMES notes Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP — but not Fatah.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-389403,00.html

Comments to:
worldnews.editor@the-times.co.uk

* * *

MSNBC notes Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP — but not Fatah.
http://msnbc.com/news/677951.asp?0dm=C19ON

Comments to:
world@msnbc.com

* * *

NEWSDAY notes Hamas and Jihad, but not Fatah.
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-womide202831231aug20.story?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dprint

Comments to:
http://cf.newsday.com/newsdayemail/email.cfm

* * *

REUTERS notes Hamas, but not Fatah.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020820/ts_nm/mideast_dc_3440

Comments to:
editor@reuters.com

* * *

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE notes Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP — but not Fatah.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/20/MN95045.DTL

Comments to:
letters@sfchronicle.com

* * *

WASHINGTON POST notes Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP — but not Fatah.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41937-2002Aug20.html

Comments to:
letters@washpost.com

 

Authors
Top
More in (1 of 658 articles)
IDNSfeat


Today's Top Stories 1. After days of wrangling, AFP/Times of Israel reports that Palestinian and European diplomats agreed to merge ...