In a rare show of criticism towards the Palestinians, Amnesty International released a report accusing Hamas of committing war crimes during the 2014 Gaza conflict.
The Independent’s package of coverage, however, gives the impression of a media outlet that simply can’t come to terms with a framing of the conflict where Palestinians are not treated as wholly innocent victims of Israeli malice.
The paper’s primary story by Ben Lynfield on Amnesty’s report is accompanied by an article by Kim Sengupta from Gaza that does its utmost to cast doubt on Amnesty’s conclusion that a misfired Hamas rocket was responsible for the deaths of 13 Palestinians in the al-Shati refugee camp.
Most of the 13 killed were very young, the latest casualties of a series of explosions, some of which had wiped out entire families. Hamas blamed Israel for the Shati attack; the Israelis claimed Hamas rockets were responsible. We reporters, trying to chart the relentless violence of the conflict, day after day, had little time for examining the evidence.
Is journalist Sengupta actually admitting that the media simply took Palestinian “eyewitnesses” and Hamas claims at face value without even bothering to investigate properly?
The rest of the article gives free rein to Palestinians continuing to blame Israel for the attack even though these interviewees have no professional expertise in making that judgment aside from their own anti-Israel prejudices.
Not to mention that Gazans are not at liberty to criticize Hamas without potential consequences, something that is not considered in the article and is a violation of basic journalism.
I have heard that it might have been Hamas, but I don’t think they have rockets that big. I think it was the Israelis.”
The debris from the wreckage was removed remarkably quickly on the day and some photographers complained that they were prevented from filming. “That does not prove anything,” declared Yasser Abu-Shaqfa, 46, a cousin of Mohammed. “The Israelis were bombing every day; all ages were getting killed. Why should this place be any different? We would like to see proof if we are to decide whether Hamas was involved.”
The Independent’s coverage also includes a staff editorial, which states:
It is misguided to speak of equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian aggression in Gaza.
Nearly 1,500 Palestinian civilians died in last year’s Israeli onslaught, according to the UN, and much of the city remains in rubble, as The Independent has reported this week. The destruction wrought on the Palestinian enclave far outweighs the rockets fired across the border by Hamas.
Indeed there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. The Independent, however, appears to imply that Israel is actually worse than Hamas by virtue of the greater level of destruction in Gaza.
While The Independent then goes on to state that there is “blame on both sides,” it still can’t bring itself to categorically refer to Hamas war crimes even though it is a central theme of the paper’s own initial story, preferring to quote a softer statement from the Amnesty report:
But it should not be forgotten that there is blame on both sides. Hamas’s reckless use of unguided missiles “displayed a flagrant disregard for international humanitarian law”, a report by Amnesty International concludes.
Taken together, The Independent’s coverage of the Amnesty report demonstrates a disturbing attitude that seeks to cast doubt on the veracity of serious charges leveled against Hamas. This sort of behavior is more in line with an advocacy organization rather than a media outlet.
Does The Independent adopt the same level of skepticism when it comes to reports from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accusing Israel of “war crimes?” Judging by the newspaper’s coverage of a previous Amnesty report that declared that “war crimes” could have been committed by Israel, we already know the answer.
[sc:graybox ]You can send your considered comments to The Independent – [email protected] – remembering to include your postal address and telephone number to stand a chance of publication on the letters page.
