Palestinian PM Haniyeh has stated that the new Palestinian unity government will support “all forms of resistance”. Only days after the establishment of the unity government, Hamas has demonstrated exactly what this means.
The terror organization has claimed responsibility for a shooting attack which wounded an Israeli near the Karni border crossing. On the same day, the Egyptians have arrested a would-be Hamas suicide bomber next to the Israeli border awaiting instructions to carry out a terror attack inside Israel.
It is becoming apparent that Hamas intends to continue advocating terror, violence and the refusal to recognize Israel. Some of the international media had, however, fallen over itself in whitewashing the new Palestinian unity government.
Credit to CNN, which refreshingly includes some important context:
“Historically, Haniya’s Hamas party’s use of the term “occupation” does not only refer to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and, previously, Gaza. The group uses the term to characterize Israel’s existence, contending that the Jewish state occupies the Palestinian territories.”
Compare this with the BBC, which in typical fashion analyzes the Palestinian PM’s comments:
“The BBC’s Matthew Price says that while Mr Haniya’s speech will not go far enough for Israel, it is important that a senior member of Hamas has again called for the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel since 1967.
Our correspondent says that some see this as an implicit recognition of Israel’s existence.”
AFP refers to US reaction to the unity government as “hardline”:
“The United States on Sunday said it will deal with the new Palestinian government only if it agrees to forgo violence and fully recognize Israel.
US national security adviser Stephen Hadley laid down that hard line [emphasis added] in remarks on US television, after Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, in a speech to parliament, insisted on his new government’s right to all forms of resistance, rejecting a key international condition for acceptance.
“This government needs to renounce terror and violence,” Hadley told CNN.”
Does the AFP regard a call to renounce terror and violence as “hardline”? What would the AFP consider to be moderation? Why are Hadley’s comments, which reflect the position of the Quartet, regarded as such while Haniyeh’s do not merit any similar judgment? After all, the demands of the Quartet that the Palestinian government renounce violence, abide by previous agreements and recognize Israel can hardly be considered to be extreme in the lexicon of international diplomacy.
Please ask the AFP why it disagrees - http://www.afp.com/english/afp/?pid=contact – and send us any feedback you may receive.
Media outlets are not representing the reality of the new Palestinian unity government. Send your considered comments to:
BBC Complaints – http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
LA TIMES CHANGES HEADLINE
When we highlighted Saree Makdisi’s recent commentary in the LA Times, the original headline read:
Why does The Times recognize Israel’s ‘right to exist’?
Some of you spotted a quick switch by the LA Times, which appears to have reacted to a deluge of letters from HR subscribers. The LA Times headline now reads:
In the war of words, The Times is Israel’s ally
That’s quite a difference from the original headline, which still appears on other sources, including the Yahoo News Mideast feed. (Click on the image to see a screen capture.)