Here are just some of the latest examples of poor or biased reporting on the wave of Palestinian terror unleashed on Israel’s citizens.
“ALLEGED ASSAILANTS”
It’s not only the Wall Street Journal that refers to “alleged” Palestinian attackers. Check out the Irish Times‘s headline:
DELEGITIMIZING ISRAELI SELF-DEFENSE
It doesn’t matter whether Israelis are attacked by rockets, bombs or knives – some media, in partnership with so-called human rights organizations, will always attempt to delegitimize Israel’s rights to self-defense. Once again Israel is accused of a “disproportionate” response and the higher Palestinian casualty figures are used to justify the charge.
That fewer Israelis have died in Palestinian attacks is a result of swift Israeli responses at the scene, medical expertise and no amount of sheer luck. Let’s be under no illusions – Palestinian attackers intend to murder.
Yet, Ruth Pollard files a story for the Sydney Morning Herald pushing the line that Israelis have reacted disproportionately by using lethal force against Palestinians carrying out terror attacks.
Anti-Israel organization Human Rights Watch is extensively quoted:
“The pattern that emerges from the videos, eye-witness accounts and the sheer number of casualties is troubling, especially when juxtaposed with problematic statements by Israel’s leaders,” Ms Bashi told Fairfax Media.
International law – both international human rights law and the special rules that apply to Israel’s occupation – requires Israeli security forces to protect civilians, even if they are demonstrating or suspected of violence, she said.
“Firearms should be a last resort. Intentional use of lethal force should only be used when strictly necessary to protect life – and even then, warning should be given if possible.“
Israel’s primary concern at this time is unsurprisingly to protect its own citizens and not the terrorists.
Pollard continues on this path, quoting another politicized non-governmental organization, Al-Haq, as well as the extremist Israeli Haaretz commentator Gideon Levy and jailed Palestinian terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti.
One thing is clear – the casualty rate is likely to go up and Palestinians carrying out attacks may very well be killed by Israeli forces protecting innocent men, women and children.
So Ruth Pollard, HRW et al – how many Israeli casualties would you accept before acknowledging Israeli self-defense as legitimate?
SYMPATHIZING WITH TERRORISTS
Harry’s Place blog writes:
Last Wednesday, a 18-year old Palestinian teenager stabbed an Israeli man in Jerusalem’s Old City, and was then shot and injured.
On Saturday, 16-year old Palestinian teenager stabbed an Israeli man in Jerusalem’s Old City, and was then shot dead.
Today the Independent has a piece about the latter stabber, Ishaq Badran, asking “what drove him to it?” in its sub-headline.
The opening paragraph:
Ishaq Badran was described simply as a “terrorist” after stabbing an Israeli near the Damascus Gate in occupied East Jerusalem on Saturday.
Well, how else would you describe Badran?
What follows is worse. This is how The Independent connects the two stabbers:
Mr Badran said that his son had been deeply upset by reports that a settler had stripped the hijab off a Muslim woman in the Old City of Jerusalem last Wednesday. The reports, which could not be independently confirmed, soon spread on Palestinian social media. “He spoke to his mother about this and cried,” Mr Badran told The Independent. “He was crying, saying: ‘No one is defending these women’.” The woman was shot as she tried to stab an Israeli man, according to Israeli police.
This is plainly, demonstrably a lie – and the Independent lends credence to them by suggesting there is even a chance of them being “independently confirmed”. We learn far later that this woman was not stripped of her hijab at all, but was shot because she stabbed an Israeli (not “tried to” as the article claims).
And there’s more. Read the rest at Harry’s Place here.
FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCE
There’s one side initiating violence and another side defending its citizens. You wouldn’t know it if you looked at CNN.
Is it really “Israeli-Palestinian violence” or isn’t “Palestinian violence” more accurate?
CNN has created a false moral equivalence between the two sides.
PIG-HEADED PRIORITIES
While Israelis are under attack, the Daily Mail decided to run with something far more important…
[sc:graybox ]The above examples are only a selection of some of the bias that is infecting the coverage of the wave of terror. If you see something that catches your eye in your local media, let us know through our Red Alert contact form.
You can read more about other examples of biased coverage of Palestinian terror here – Palestinian Terror Wave Prompts Media Bias Wave
