FT Hamas Shocker – “We Don’t Feel a Correction Was Warranted”
December 22, 2011 12:26 by Simon Plosker
Hamas does not discriminate between Israeli soldiers, civilians, men, women, children or babies when it carries out terror attacks. For Hamas, they are all potential soldiers and legitimate targets. That’s why Israelis and most of the media knew exactly what Hamas meant when it boasted of killing 1365 “Zionist soldiers” over the 24 years of its existence.
But not the Financial Times, which published the following, referring to “Israeli soldiers” of the purely military kind:
We pointed this out on our Backspin blog at the time as it is important to understand that Hamas deliberately targets civilians and soldiers alike. Stating that Hamas has killed only soldiers whitewashes the indiscriminate murderous agenda of the organization and is, of course, an inaccurate report of what Hamas really stated.
Thinking that the Financial Times had committed an innocuous error, we contacted the paper asking for a correction. This was the response:
thank your for your email, which I followed up with Tobias Buck , our Jerusalem bureau chief, and we don’t feel a correction is warranted. The column clearly attributes its claims to Hamas in Gaza. The statement was carried on the official Qassam Brigades website and referred to “1385 Zionist soldiers”. We and all other outlets tend to translate “Zionist” into “Israeli”, since that is what they mean. Hamas was clearly not talking about civilians. Below are links to the Hamas web site and AFP wire from that day, which also refers to “Israeli soldiers”.
If Hamas was “clearly not talking about civilians,” then how does Tobias Buck explain Israeli human rights organization (and a favorite source for the international media) B’Tselem’s own casualty statistics dating back to 1987 when Hamas was formed?
Unlike Hamas, B’Tselem does distinguish between civilian and military casualties on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. So we totaled the number of Israeli soldiers and civilians killed by Palestinians (including all terror groups and not only Hamas) and came up with the following:
- 492 members of the Israeli security forces killed by Palestinians
- 1025 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
- Total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians, Dec. 1987 – present: 1517
Had Tobias Buck bothered to do some simple fact-checking, he would have realized that Hamas could not possibly be referring to only soldiers when it quoted a figure of 1365, also bearing in mind that out of the 492 soldiers and 1025 civilians, other Palestinian terror groups would be responsible for a proportion of those fatalities.
Even the Al-Qassam website that the FT refers to in its own email to HonestReporting is titled “Al-Qassam carried out 1106 operations, killed 1365 Zionists.” Not 1365 Zionist soldiers or Israeli soldiers but simply Zionists. According to the FT, it tends “to translate “Zionist” into “Israeli”, since that is what they mean.” In this case this is exactly what Hamas means – Israelis.
If, as the FT states, it merely repeated the Hamas claims word-for-word, then it should have published the quote as is i.e. referring to “Zionist soldiers” and added the caveat that this actually referred to all Israelis irrespective of military or civilian status.
Instead, the FT (and the AFP) has unilaterally changed the meaning of Hamas’s words thus sanitizing the reality of the Hamas agenda – to indiscriminately kill as many Israelis as possible.
That the FT has refused point-blank to amend or correct its error is simply unethical and unprofessional journalism.
We will be following up with the FT to demand a correction and acknowledgement of the error. In the meantime, you can also add your voice to this call by writing to the Financial Times – corrections@ft.com
Please consider clicking +1, Tweet, Like or linking to this article on your blog or website. Correcting the record about the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas is only effective when it reaches a large readership, especially through the Google search engine. Creating a link to this page with the text “Hamas civilian casualties” helps this article reach the first page search results for the term.
Image: CC BY-SA HonestReporting.com, flickr/gerlos.
Yosef Dov
5:23 pm
Dec 22, 2011
But but but but– we’ve been told that those evil zionazi joooooooooossss control all the financial stuff in the world— how could something called “Financial Times” possibly have any bias against Israel and Joooos????
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
34 
1
Elder of Ziyon
5:40 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Hamas in Arabic said “Zionists,” not “Zionist soldiers.”
http://paltimes.net/details/news/7580/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85-1117-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%881365-%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%84.html
Agree or Disagree:
3 
2
Danny Black
1:00 pm
Dec 23, 2011
If the link is the same as on your site they said 1365 Zionist soldiers in Arabic too. Maybe Google Translate didn’t catch that..
Cheers
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Clinton Nauert
5:49 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Shalom HR,
I really do not know what to say at this point. I am rather embarrassed to be a Gentile.
Most of us religious Gentiles believe G-d is Perfect, All Knowing and overflowing in Loving-Kindness ……… Yet, we ACT as if G-d made a major error when He chose Israel as His people.
And of course We Gentiles, are the only ones who have the right to judge G-d and how He operates. We claim we are the recipients of a New Covenant yet, Jeremiah 31:31,34 clearly states Israel and Judah will one day be given the New Covenant. Jealously and Ignorance abound, they always have and I suppose they always will.
Can anyone detect my frustration ??? And how much more frustration do the Jewish people (rightly) have ???
Shalom U’Brechot,
Clint
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
26 
1
Stephen Regal
6:52 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Yuo are so correct, sadly we do not have sufficient friends of the Christian Faith who recognise the fact that there is just one G-d and we all worship the same G-d.
May you enjoy a blessed festive season in peace and harmony!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
0
DAVID KAPLAN
6:01 pm
Dec 22, 2011
What the Financial Times clearly means is that they agree wholeheartedly with Hamas’ that ALL Jews are soldiers. Whether they are civilians, children or babies, all Jews are soldiers to be killed. Thus, the FT is no longer a supporter of terrorism but is crossing the boundary into participation, something that is NOT protected under free speech.
Part of the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism no doubt.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
42 
1
Avi L
8:16 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Bravo David, Bravo
Indeed the FT cross the line into the participation zone. No freedom of speech rulles apply anymore…
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
0
Jiri Adler
12:51 am
Dec 25, 2011
You see, I think that it is even worse than that. FT accepts Hamas’ approach, namely, that it is irrelevant whether Israelis being killed are Jewish soldiers or not – for them being Jewish is a valid reason for murder. In other words – who cares – as long as there are Jews killed Hamas, and it seems that FT as well, are happy.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
max
6:08 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are important markets for the FT’s parent, Pearson, while the Libyan Investment Authority is a major shareholder, as far as I remember. News must always be handled with great care.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
23 
0
Magen Michael
6:16 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Shocker??
Why is it so shocking?
Reprehensible, yes, but hardly shocking. Isn’t this standard fare for news media? I’ve certainly haven’t noticed that the FT should be an exception. We have come to expect this deceit from journalists. Which is why Honest Reporting is so necessary.
I’m looking for the day when;
“Shocking report, newspapers tell the truth”
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
25 
0
Elder of Ziyon
6:37 pm
Dec 22, 2011
But the Arabic al-Qassam website did say “soldiers”, so there is an inconsistency there.
http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/news1.php?id=25226
Agree or Disagree:
2 
1
Lenny
6:41 pm
Dec 22, 2011
I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The Times reported what Hamas claimed, not on any facts. It should have pointed out that Hamas’ claim on killing soldiers was patently false, and that it has in fact killed many civilians, but that sin of omission is par for the media.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
13 
2
Asher
11:11 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Lenny- The problem lies in journalistic integrity via the standards by which a newspaper like Financial Times wishes to follow. If FT wants to simply quote Hamas and not follow through on the validity of their claims, then voila, FT now becomes a spokesentity for Hamas.
That’s how they go from being a newspaper to a rag in less than 10 seconds.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Victor Gordon
6:53 pm
Dec 22, 2011
If, as Tobius Buck claims, the 1365 Israelis killed were all soldiers, how does he reconcile the figure offered by Hamas of 87 suicide bombings which were largely aimed at civilian buses and restaurants? If your readers must accept that all 1365 casualties were soldiers does that mean that not a single civilian was killed in the 87 suicide attacks that took place? Does that also mean that the terrible carnage we witnessed on television was all faked? As no other figure is offered by Hamas to account for civilian casualties what happened to them all?
Surely Tobius Buck can’t be that dumb – or can he?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
Jiri Adler
7:21 pm
Dec 22, 2011
Oh yes, he can!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
1
FactsRule
1:22 am
Dec 23, 2011
He’s just evil.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
SOL
7:13 pm
Dec 22, 2011
WHY ALL THE FUSS ON TRYING TO CORRECT WHAT THEY PRINT. I LIVE MY LIFE ON THIS PREMISE, THAT IF THEY IF THEY OFFEND ISRAEL I DON’T PURCHASE THEIR PRODUCTS OR WATCH THEIR CHANNELS OR USE THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY SELL. I CHECK EACH PACKAGE THAT I BUY IN THE SUPERMARKET AND NEVER USE THEM IF THEY IN ANYWAY SLANDERED ISRAEL! I TELL ALL OF MY FRIENDS TO ALSO TO BOYCOTT THE LA AND NEW YORK TIMES.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
20 
0
Jonathan Pincus
7:20 pm
Dec 22, 2011
You are somewhat oversensitive. The FT comment is clearly derisive of Hamas’ claim and condemnatory of Hamas policies.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
9
Jiri Adler
7:38 pm
Dec 22, 2011
YOu are overlooking that they are leaving out (and I would say purposely) the simple fact that Hamas and others of the same ilk target civilians, including children. It is even more outrageous when you consider that Hamas routinely uses civilians as human shield and when despite the pain and sacrifices that Israeli forces go through to warn civilians (for instance, announcing well in advance when they are going to attack), there are, as a result of being used as human shields, some casualties among civilians, the world hears about it over and over and over.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
0
artcohn
8:39 pm
Dec 22, 2011
It is ironic that HR uses B’Tselem as a standard of fairness. Where Hamas and FT count all Israelis as soldiers, B’tselem tends to falsely claim that most terrorists killed were civilians. B’tselem’s standard for the designation of an Arab casualty as a civilian is whether he was not wearing a uniform . Since most terrrorists do not wear uniforms, B’Tselem counts those casualies as civilians.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
LUIS FROM MEXICO
8:48 pm
Dec 22, 2011
I am surprised that killing thousands of Jews is perfectlly valid for Arab extremists and for the whole antisemitic world, but if Israel kills 3, 5 or 10 terrorists who try to blow up themselves and kill inocent people, the Arab paid media makes a big deal out of it.
Arabs can kill Arabs (Syria, Lybia, Egipt) and that is “normal” to defend their corrupted regimes……..but Israel can not kill a single terrorist in order to defend their citizens???…..Where is the fair and balanced view of the world’s media.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
15 
0
Financial Times refuses to correct Hamas claim - ScrollPost.com
9:20 pm
Dec 22, 2011
[...] most of the dead are civilian,and obviously targeted as civilians – but the Financial Times refused to issue the correction: thank your for your email, which I followed up with Tobias Buck , our Jerusalem bureau chief, and [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Philip Lewis
10:09 pm
Dec 22, 2011
These people cannot be outmaneuvered, there are simply too many of them feeding those who are always ready to devour anti-Semitic poison – they have to be stopped.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
FactsRule
1:20 am
Dec 23, 2011
Here’s what I wrote under the headline: Your Inaccurate Misquote
492 members of the Israeli security forces killed by Palestinians
1025 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
Total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians, Dec. 1987 – present: 1517
You give aid and comfort to a branch of the existential enemy of Western civilization, Hamas.
You are cowards, bullies against tiny Israel, and unreliable useful idiots.
Mike Sachs
Las Vegas
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Brent Pudsey
1:59 am
Dec 23, 2011
Excellent analysis and good statistical data to prove what Hamas is truly like. The Financial Times needs to stick to the facts and not lets it biases show through.
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Religion of Bloodthirsty Child Killers — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
3:00 am
Dec 23, 2011
[...] Financial Times refuses to correct Hamas claim– Honest Reporting called them out on the claim that Hamas had killed 1,365 Israeli soldiers – when in fact most of the dead are civilian,and obviously targeted as civilians – but the Financial Times refused to issue the correction. [...]
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
StorminNorm
6:23 am
Dec 23, 2011
Why is everyone so surprised when someone like F.T. refuses to “Give a Damn” whether they get it right when it comes to Israel??? Even the “EXALTED” New York and Los Angeles Times constantly come out against Israel when push comes to shove…and both pubs are in large Jewish population centers!!!! Is it simply that they are misguided so called liberals who feel sorry for the poor down trodden palestinian people or is it more simply…basic Anti-Semitism!!!
Their attitude to me seems to be “—- the Jews/Israeli’s”!!!!
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
jan benj. rødner
11:28 am
Dec 23, 2011
They admit to translating “zionist” to “israeli”. Then they should also translate “soldiers”. Either that or they should keep the word zionist, so that it would be even more clear that this is a Hamas claim and not a statement of the pure facts.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0