Demonstrating an intense hostility towards Israel and his guest, Deputy Ambassador Zvi Ravner, Jon Snow makes some incredible and disturbing statements during an interview on Channel 4 News. (Click here to view the interview.)
Snow attacks Ravner:
You’ve cut off the water, you’ve cut off the petrol, you’ve cut off the electricity and you’re starving the hospitals out.
Incredibly, ignoring the obvious danger posed by Qassam missiles and their effects on the Israeli town of Sderot and other parts of the Western Negev, Snow continues:
Rockets – pretty pathetic things, nobody gets injured, they’re homemade and you well know they [the Palestinians] have nothing much stronger than an AK-47. They have no RPG’s, they have no weapons and now you’re delivering some of the most sophisticated bombardment that’s ever been subjected to of defenceless people. Is that an act of terror would you say?
Snow’s hostile line of questioning ignores Ravner’s reasoned explanations and continues to accuse Israel itself of practicing terrorism, despite the events surrounding the kidnapping of soldier Gilad Shalit and Israel’s purposeful measures aimed at preventing Palestinian civilian casualties.
To comment on Jon Snow’s outrageous and hostile interview, send e-mails to Channel 4 News and Jon Snow.
WHEN IS A KIDNAP NOT A KIDNAP?
As the fraught situation in Gaza occupies the the media, thanks to the keen eye of leading commentator Tom Gross, who has analysed the slanted BBC coverage of the current Gaza crisis. He notes that the
BBC has decided not to use the term “kidnap” in relation to the story of Corporal Gilad Shalit. The corporation instead says he has been “captured”. And Hamas cabinet members picked up by the Israeli army were “detained” rather than “arrested”.
The BBC’s foreign editor, Jon Williams, explains the decision in the BBC editors’ blog:
“Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry value judgments. Our job is to remain objective. By doing so, I hope we allow our audiences on radio and television to make their own assessment of the story. So we try to stick to the facts. Civilians are ‘kidnapped’; Cpl Shalit was ‘captured’. Since troops don’t usually make ‘arrests’, the politicians were ‘detained’. Doubtless some will disagree. But that’s, in essence, the heart of the story.”
To say that Corporal Shalit was merely “captured” is, of course, nonsense. He was abducted while near a kibbutz in the middle of a night in a carefully planned kidnap operation that was worked on for months and cost Hamas considerable money. And he is being held as a hostage by a terrorist group. If this is not a kidnapping, what is?
In addition, many media outlets have referred to Palestinian demands that Israel release “women and children” held in Israeli prisons without mentioning why these prisoners were arrested by Israel in the first place. In a glaring example, Tom Gross refers to a BBC website article:
focusing on a Palestinian man, Walid al-Houdaly, who claimed that his wife and 18-month old son are being held in an Israeli prison. Separately, BBC correspondents have said Israel is taking an “exceptionally hard line” in refusing to talk about releasing these Palestinian prisoners.
The article, which reads like a propaganda statement for Islamic Jihad, is guilty of omitting some very important facts.
It states that al-Houdaly’s wife “headed a women’s organisation dedicated to providing health services for poor Palestinians.”
In fact, according to Palestinian media reports and pro-Palestinian campaigners for prisoner releases, Walid al-Houdaly’s wife is a member of Islamic Jihad, and was jailed for 10 years for attempting to detonate a car bomb in Jerusalem. These facts are simply omitted from the BBC’s report.
Comments to the BBC.
More Mideast media analysis on Tom Gross’s website.
MORAL EQUIVALENCE?
The Independent’s front page from 28 June graphically illustrates the way in which some media have portrayed the current Gaza crisis. In this montage, an IDF tank symbolises the Israeli aggressor as opposed to the ‘peaceful’ Palestinian pictured with the green Hamas flag in the background.
This is not the first time that the Independent has used such imagery to attack Israel, as seen most recently in its cover of an American flag whose stars have been replaced by those of Israel.
Comments to the Independent.
HonestReporting UK will continue to monitor developments in what is a very fluid situation and hopes that Gilad Shalit will be safely reunited with his family as soon as possible.
DANGEROUS NAIVETY
A large number of Guardian opinion pieces are characterised by their vitriol towards Israel. Mathias Mossberg‘s 4 July contribution, however, displays a remarkable and dangerous naivety. Mossberg, while admitting the lack of realism in his vision, advocates that “instead of the familiar formula in which two states exist side by side, Israel and Palestine would be two states superimposed on one another.” While the utopian language employed by Mossberg in his commentary may sound reasonable, the practical end result is a coded call for a one-state solution and the demise of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.
A two-state solution is the accepted way forward by both Israel and the wider international community in the face of those extremists such as the Hamas who prefer to see one Palestinian state replacing Israel.
In addition, Mossberg envisions Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully, not side by side but on top of each other. Yet he fails to address pertinent issues such as Palestinian terrorism, religious extremism and incitement to hatred and violence that would need to be addressed for any form of peace agreement to work. Mossberg’s plan would undoubtedly lead to violence and the deaths of many Israelis at the hands of Palestinian terrorists.
Despite the complicated and clever language of this piece, is the Guardian going to continue promoting a one-state solution in its opinion pages?
Comments to the Guardian.
