TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Honest Reporting
Pages (11): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hardly THE MOST objective ... it's partly funded by the government of Qatar. It's just as bad as CNN in that it bears some Arab bias.

well, some bias is inevitable in any Tv media....

quote:

Originally posted by Tranex02 well, some bias is inevitable in any Tv media....

Yes I'm aware of this ... I'm just saying that people shouldn't adopt a holier than thou attitude when they talk of Al-Jazeera. It caters to an Arab audience and thus has Arab biases. To say that it is the bastion of objectivity whereas CNN is complete garbage is erroneous. Both are biased.

"LONDON BROIL"

* * *
The Times of London published a slideshow from the Iraqi war (Day Six), featuring 11 military photos and one anti-war protestor. From the hundreds of protestor photos available to news agencies that day, The Times chose a
close-up of a woman donning a headband emblazoned with the words, "KILL JEWS." The photo is captioned simply: "A university student protests against the war in Iraq."

View the slideshow and click on photo #5:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...-624507,00.html

Once the initial shock of the photo wears off, one wonders:

-- Why did The Times' editors choose this particular photo to represent the tens of thousands of worldwide protestors who oppose a conflict between two non-Jewish nations? Is this woman really "protesting against the war in Iraq"? Why did The Times' editors grant her call for genocide such a forum?

-- Why does The Times refrain from a detailed photo caption (unlike the others in the series), referring merely to the subject as "a university student" -- an anonymous, unplaced scholar with Anglo features? In fact, as the AP reported, the woman marched in Islamibad, Pakistan -- one of the world's hotbeds of radical Islam. Link: http://honestreporting.com/a/r/377.asp

HonestReporting encourages members to respond to The Times of London,
requesting their rationale for publishing the loathsome photo in such a context.

Write to:
[email protected]


==== I.S.M.: HUMANITARIAN AID? ====

The International Solidarity Movement -- the pro-Palestinian "humanitarian group" to which the late American college student Rachel Corrie belonged -- is back in the news. On Thursday, the IDF raided the ISM's Jenin office to find a wanted member of the Islamic Jihad sheltered within. The terrorist was arrested; the ISM claimed ignorance.
Read the story at: http://honestreporting.com/a/r/378.asp

This is the same Islamic Jihad that took responsibility for today's
terrorist bombing in Netanya that injured 30 Israelis.

"TWO BOMBS, TWO STANDARDS"

* * *
This week's twin Mideast suicide attacks exposed double standards in media coverage. At a checkpoint outside Najaf, an Iraqi army officer killed five American soldiers by blowing himself up in a taxi; in Netanya, a Palestinian ignited his explosive belt at the entrance to a cafe, injuring 50 Israelis.

It is important to note that while the Iraqi attacker targeted soldiers, the Palestinian bomber targeted civilians. The U.S. government makes this key distinction, officially defining terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."
http://history.navy.mil/library/gui....htm#definition

The disguising of a car bomb as a taxi in order to kill uniformed soldiers would therefore not constitute terrorism, according to the U.S. government. A heinous war tactic, yes; terrorism, no.

Nonetheless, the same media that has consistently refused to call
Palestinian bombings "terror" is now freely quoting American spokesmen as calling the Iraqi checkpoint bombing "terror." For example:
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "I don't know what motivated this guy to kill
himself," said Capt. Andrew J. Valles, the First Brigade's civil and
military affairs officer. "To me, this is not an act of war. It is
terrorism: a man in a civilian vehicle killing himself at a checkpoint."
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/379.asp

AFP: "We are very concerned about it. It looks and feels like terrorism," said Major General Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/380.asp

* * *

The double standard is fully evident in coverage from the Associated
Press. Consider:

- The Associated Press listed the Iraqi attack among other historical
"terror attacks against the U.S. military":
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/381.asp

- Yet the Associated Press coverage of the Netanya blast calls the bomber a �militant� (using "terror" only in direct quotations):
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/382.asp

To question the double standard, send comments to:
[email protected]

(By the way, no word yet from Reuters, whose global news editor Stephen Jukes refuses to apply the word "terror" to Sept. 11, saying: "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."
Source: Washington Post http://honestreporting.com/a/r/383.asp)


---- MORE IRAQI-PALESTINIAN AXIS ----

Ali Jaafar al-Noamani, the Iraqi homicide bomber who killed five U.S.
soldiers, has been honored by Palestinians who renamed the main square in Jenin as "Noamani Square."

The Jerusalem Post quotes a senior Palestinian official in Jenin as
saying: "We want to honor the brave Iraqi officer who carried out the
first suicide attack against the American and British occupiers. We hope there will be more suicide operations in the coming days."
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/384.asp

Meanwhile in Lebanon, Yasser Arafat's Fatah has announced they are sending suicide bombers to Iraq to increase the number of attacks on the coalition forces.
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/385.asp

"TALE OF TWO CHECKPOINTS"
* * *
On Monday, two days after a checkpoint suicide bomb killed four American soldiers, U.S. forces shot and killed 11 Iraqi family members when their vehicle failed to stop at an army checkpoint. This fateful incident parallels similar events in Israel, where the IDF -- like the Americans -- works the difficult balance between ensuring the safety of its soldiers and avoiding civilian casualties.

But when it comes to press coverage, the parallels end. For nearly three years, Israel has been lambasted in the media for its rules of engagement -- accused of humiliating Palestinians and using excessive force that caused civilian deaths.

Here's a specific example from the Associated Press, February 2002. Under the headline, "Second Pregnant Woman Shot By Israeli Checkpoint Troops," AP gives extensive details of Palestinians victims' ages, names, background, medical condition, and a graphic description of bloody wounds. Readers have to wade 250 words deep into the article before AP mentions the key points -- that the Palestinian car ran a barricade, ignored warning calls, and then attempted a reverse detour around the checkpoint.And only at the very end of the 562-word account is appropriate context provided -- that six IDF soldiers were killed at a similar checkpoint just days before.

This article is cached on a pro-Palestinian website:
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/386.asp

Even the U.S. State Department, in its just-released annual Human Rights Report, accuses the IDF of using "excessive force while manning checkpoints... which resulted in many deaths."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18278.htm

* * *

In covering the Iraqi deaths, however, major media reports -- across the board -- encourage sympathy and understanding for the U.S. checkpoint soldiers' difficult predicament.

For example, The New York Times headline reads: "Failing to Heed G.I.'s, 7 Iraqis Die at Checkpoint"
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/387.asp

Note how The Times places blame on the victims (for "failing to heed
warning"), and rather than mention that U.S. soldiers did the killing, terms the deaths in passive terms ("women and children die").

Could we ever imagine The New York Times reporting a similar
Israeli-Palestinian incident in this way?

More examples of the media showing understanding toward the difficult
American position:

- TIME MAGAZINE: "Their own safety now demands that U.S. and British
forces consider every Iraqi civilian a potential mortal threat."
http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...,439438,00.html

- BBC, quoting an American officer: "If vehicles approach us on the road we may open fire. We need this road open and we can't delay for vehicles that might approach us and might contain suicide bombers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2907991.stm

- REUTERS: "The United States... has tried hard to avoid civilian
casualties. But soldiers' nerves are stretched thin since a suicide attack killed four U.S. soldiers on Saturday."
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/388.asp

- LOS ANGELES TIMES: "It was yet another example of the bewildering
predicament American troops find themselves in as Iraqi forces disguise themselves as civilians, women are used as human shields and any vehicle driving down the road could be a suicide bomb."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1,1650227.story

* * *

Many media went even further, prominently quoting the idea that Saddam Hussein himself is to blame for the checkpoints death. For example:

- LOS ANGELES TIMES: "The blood is on the hands of the regime for their decisions and their willingness to use their population this way," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, spokesman for Central Command. "If there's a question of morality, it really should go back to the regime."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ome%2Dheadlines

- THE UK INDEPENDENT: "This is yet another incident in a trend of this regime using civilians, in this case innocent women and children, in order to cause harm to coalition forces," said Capt Frank Thorp. "The blood of this incident is on the hands of this regime."
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/389.asp

Has the media ever lent credence to the idea that Yasser Arafat and his dictatorial terror tactics are to be blamed for difficulties endured by Palestinians at checkpoints?

* * *

CONCLUSION:

HonestReporting believes that the media portrayal of U.S. army actions is legitimate. Yes, soldiers are under intense pressure. Soldiers are threatened with suicide bombings, and terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians and use civilian shields. Soldiers are confronting a regime that encourages its citizens to engage in suicide-terror tactics.

Understandably, the Western media consider the difficulties of wartime checkpoint ethics, and is therefore prepared to strike a forgiving pose in the event of accidental civilian deaths.

This yields important conclusions vis-a-vis the media's coverage of
Israel:

1) While the media has consistently portrayed Israeli tactics as
inappropriate, Israeli policy has now apparently been vindicated as
conforming to Western moral standards of combat.

2) The media, it seems, never really objected to the actual tactics... unless it was Israelis pulling the trigger. When an incident occurs in Israel, the media's understanding tone simply disappears.

And this, despite the fact that IDF checkpoints are guarding against
hostile entry to civilian -- not military -- populations.

The conclusion is stark: The media employs a double standard against
Israel.

Re: Re: Re: Honest Reporting

quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike whats up with that? you think its a joke that 4 kids will be growing up without parents? you think its a joke that while this family was sitting down to eat friday night meal, they were executed? why the fuck are you rolling you fuckin eyes?

Basically he's saying boo hoo hoo, and that its part of reallity. its fact of hatred between two countries, and that nobody is safe. Women, men, and children are always at risk when two countries are in turmoil against eachother.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic hey mike...what exactly is your goal on posting everyday in the political forum dude..showing how great israel and how crap the arabs are..we get it dude..we get it..ISRAEL=Understood country..ARABS=bunch of cry babies and all is whats wrong with the world..there happy now..everyday same topic israel is this israel that..arabs this arabs that..we get the point now can we discusss other issues..for a change

LOL! Dont you think its the other way around. Arabs=understood country...Isreal=Bunch of cry babies. Bah, what a waste of time and thread space.

woohoo melech_mike is back

Re: Re: Re: Re: Honest Reporting

quote:

Originally posted by TheDemon Basically he's saying boo hoo hoo, and that its part of reallity. its fact of hatred between two countries, and that nobody is safe. Women, men, and children are always at risk when two countries are in turmoil against eachother.

Only one country bud...

and if they keep this shit up (past 48 hours of terror), they'll never get what they want. Perhaps terror is their primary objective.

BYSTANDERS TO TERROR

The past two days have been among the most brutal in the Palestinian campaign of terror against Israel � five suicide bombs in a mere forty-eight hours have left 14 dead and scores wounded. The latest attack, just hours ago in Afula, was apparently perpetrated by a female terrorist who, halted by a security guard, detonated herself at the entrance to a crowded shopping mall.

While Israelis mourn the deceased and pray for the wounded, the media have begun in tandem to employ a disturbing new term to describe Israeli terror victims � "bystanders." On Sunday, The New York Times issued a report on the Jerusalem bus attack that began with the curious statement:

"The new Middle East peace effort stalled today, after a barrage of four Palestinian attacks killed nine bystanders�"

The Associated Press issued a similar report that day, stating:

"In 93 suicide attacks since the current violence erupted in September 2000, 357 bystanders have been killed."

[AP also used the term "bystanders" to refer to terror victims in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.]

In common usage, a "bystander" is an individual peripheral to the central action in a given event � i.e., a bystander to a terrorist attack is not the intended target. The New York Times and AP, by describing Israeli terror victims as "bystanders," imply that civilian deaths are not the specific goal of Palestinian suicide bombers. This is patently false.

There is a larger issue operating here. The media have consistently refused to call Palestinian attacks "terror." Mislabeling the victims as "bystanders" grants license to the media to mislabel the perpetrators as "militants" or "activists," instead of "terrorists."

This matter was addressed in the last HonestReporting communique, which noted The New York Times' omission of Palestinian attacks from its special section on world terror.

[The National Review cited HonestReporting's research: "There's also the curious fact that many sophisticated types don't regard terrorism directed against Israelis the way they regard terrorism directed against other victims. They may not even believe that slaughtering Israeli civilians is terrorism. For proof of that, you need go no further than the pages of the New York Times. As HonestReporting.com has noted, a Times special section on May 15 listed terrorist attacks around the world - from Saudi Arabia to Chechnya to the Philippines. Conspicuously absent from the 'complete coverage' were any mentions of terrorist attacks in Israel. (It's not just under Jayson Blair's byline where you can read distortions of reality.)"]

Joining The Times once again, Associated Press today published a list of "Recent Terrorist Attacks Around the World" since 1998. None of the attacks listed occurred in Israel.

Comments to AP: [email protected][/email]

Comments to The New York Times: [email][email protected]

HonestReporting encourages members to monitor your local media for any attempts to imply that Israeli civilians are somehow not the target of Palestinian terror, nor victims of "world terror."

--- REAL BYSTANDERS ---

The proper use of the term "bystander" appeared in a Sunday AP report worthy of broader international coverage in its own right:

"In the West Bank city of Nablus, Palestinian militiamen dragged a suspected informer [to Israel] into the main square and killed him with several shots to the head as about 200 people watched, witnesses said. One bystander said the gunmen forced their victim to kneel with his hands tied behind his back, then executed him."

Commentator James Taranto's response to this barbaric report: "Perhaps the time isn't yet ripe for a Palestinian state."

Police confirm Palestinian suicide bomber who killed three Israelis at Afula shopping mall in sixth suicide terror attack in 48 hours was a woman. She triggered explosive at mall entrance killing two security guard as her nylon bag was screened by metal detector.

Number of injured rises to 70, 13 serious, 4 moved to Ramban hospital with grave head injuries and burns.

Jihad Islami and Arafat's Fatah both claim 19-year old Haiva Derarma from Toubas who carried out suicide attack in Afula.

Police roadblocks on roads in Wadi Ara and Beit Shean regions to prevent more attacks. Afula, 4-5 km from West Bank border, suffered last suicide attack 14 months ago. Preparing for further escalation of Palestinian terror offenisive, Israeli police cancel leaves and courses to put more men on street patrols.

Earlier, senior Israeli Security sources reported that Hamas has been integrated in Arafat�s combined terrorist legion with Fatah and al Aqsa Brigades to obstruct Abu Mazen. Sharon announced today he intends meeting new Palestinian PM again.

Escaped British terrorist still officially sought. Senior Israeli security officials say body washed up from Mediterranean last week is not positively identified as Omar Sharif. UK has not replied to Israel�s request for DNA samples or dental records to identify British citizen.

US shuts consulate at Dhahran in Saudi Eastern Province for security assessment after armed individual is detained at first barrier gate of compound

DEBKAfile Reveals: Advance Egyptian Jihad Islami team set up secret base in Tangiers months in advance of Casablanca attack, arriving from Belgium and Italy as well Egypt, Sudan and Yemen. String of bombing attacks killed 41, injured 70. Thirteen suicides' bodies found. One captured alive.

Palestinian sources: Dahlan told Sharon Saturday: Fatah and Hamas can put many thousands of supporters on West Bank-Gaza Strip streets in a trice. Abu Mazen and I are helpless to stand up to them.

Arafat has ordered Palestinian media to boycott Abu Mazen government releases and statements

Read DEBKAfile Exclusive Report below

Third Qassam rockets fired from Gaza Strip Monday near southern Israeli town of Sderot. First hit building site. Two people suffer shock. In the north, another of Hizballah�s almost daily artillery barrages over northern Israel.

Palestinian suicider cyclist blows up bomb belt near Israeli military jeep on patrol near Kfar Darom in Gaza Strip early Monday. Three Israeli soldiers slightly hurt

West Bank sealed Monday night after four Palestinian terrorist attacks in 12 hours took nine Israeli lives in Jerusalem and Hebron, prompting Sharon to postpone Washington trip and Tuesday meeting with Bush. White House hopes delay no more than days.

Ari Fleischer announces his retirement as White House spokesman at end of summer

__Debkafile__
www.debka.com

im not going to read the whole thread, but id just like to mention this link http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/s...rael.palestine/ and say 'honest reporting in the israel? yeah right.'

just so i dont sound anti-semitic, which im not, and my roommate is a jew palastine officals do the same to some media reporters.

While not going into the specifics of this thread(arabs vs jews). I think its fair to say that most news is honest in that it doesn't lie, it may slant a cerain way, and omit facts but they dont lie. That said I haven't ever seen a sorce that consistntly puts out bias free news.

of course they don't lie, they just publish what they want you to hear.

"PALESTINIAN MEDIA INFLUENCE"

* * *
Below we present a fascinating research piece, "The Influence of
Palestinian Organizations on Foreign News Reporting," written by Dan
Diker, reporter for Israel Broadcasting Authority's English News. Diker is also media affairs consultant at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs, which published this article.

For more research on this topic, see reports from:

- Freedom House:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2000/reports.html#ispa

- Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.n...menafr?OpenView

- HonestReporting:
http://honestreporting.com/a/r/400.asp

==============

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-23.htm

"THE INFLUENCE OF PALESTINIAN ORGANIZATIONS ON FOREIGN NEWS REPORTING"

by Dan Diker - March 27, 2003

Since the outbreak of Palestinian violence in September 2000, Palestinian leaders have succeeded in using the international news media to mobilize world opinion in favor of the Palestinian narrative, depicting the Palestinian David defending his homeland against the Israeli Goliath. Televised images of Palestinian suffering portray a human drama that wins the news media war. As a senior source associated with an international news organization said recently, �Television loves emotions and cares less about facts. The Palestinians don't care about losing people, and the
Israelis can't fight that.�[1]

Most foreign correspondents, and particularly local Palestinian stringers who report from the West Bank and Gaza for Jerusalem-based foreign news bureaus, operate under an unspoken but firm set of rules. They avoid reporting stories involving widespread human rights abuses, high-level corruption and financial mismanagement, and violence between Palestinian groups that could prove embarrassing to Arafat and senior Palestinian officials.[2]

According to a 2001 report by the Independent Committee for Protection of Journalists, in the nearly seven years since the Palestinian National Authority assumed control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, Chairman Yasser Arafat and his multi-layered security apparatus have muzzled local press critics via arbitrary arrests, threats, physical abuse, and the closure of media outlets. Over the years, the Arafat regime has managed to frighten most Palestinian journalists into self-censorship.[3]

The Palestinian Authority does not maintain an official press center
similar to Israel's Government Press Office. However, the Ramallah-based Palestine Media Center (PMC) is described as an independent official institution established and directed by Yasser Abed Rabbo, Minister of Culture and Information of the Palestinian National Authority.[4] The PMC is heavily funded by the European Union; it may not be a coincidence, therefore, that European news organizations have largely avoided reporting stories that are critical of the Palestinian Authority.[5]

According to an Arab-Israeli journalist who assists Jerusalem-based
foreign media outlets, Abed Rabbo views media relations as an extension of the Palestinian cause.[6] The PA information minister made this idea clear to an official Foreign Press Association (FPA) delegation that met with him in September 2001 to protest Palestinian Authority threats against foreign and Palestinian freelance photographers who took pictures of Palestinian street celebrations following the September 11th attacks on the U.S. Abed Rabbo reportedly told the senior FPA representatives in no uncertain terms, Palestinian national interests would come before freedom
of the press.[7]

A former Arab and Palestinian affairs reporter for Israel Television noted that Palestinians have not yet developed an appreciation for a free news media. In Arabic, the word for news media (i'laam) is the same word that is frequently used for public relations.[8]

* * *

Most foreign journalists are not fluent in either Arabic or Hebrew,
rendering them dependent on a network of local Palestinian fixers, mostly young, educated Palestinians who speak Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Palestinian fixers, who until recently have been fully accredited by Israel's Government Press Office, know their way around Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, arrange interviews with Palestinian officials, and introduce journalists to their own circle of local acquaintances. As a rule, working with a good fixer translates into getting interviews with top Palestinian leaders and moving safely around the territories.

An Arabic-speaking Israeli journalist who avoids using fixers noted that most fixers trumpet the PLO narrative and terminology of the conflict, which frequently collides with established historical facts and international law. Moreover, Palestinian security forces watch carefully what is said by local residents to both foreign and local journalists.[9]

According to senior foreign news sources based in Jerusalem, the vast
majority of Palestinian fixers -- often close friends of Palestinian
employees of Jerusalem-based foreign news agencies -- are ideologically motivated by the Palestinian cause, and actively encourage journalists to report exclusively on the evils of the Israeli occupation, rather than on the lack of democratic freedoms or human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.[10]

* * *

Numerous foreign reporters have learned that interviews with the PA
chairman are not open invitations to ask tough questions. On March 29, 2002, Arafat hung up on CNN's Christianne Amanpour during a telephone interview from his besieged Mukata compound after Amanpour asked the PA leader repeatedly whether he was able to rein in the violence.[11]

In another instance, in 1999, a reporter from the German newspaper Der Spiegel asked Arafat about widespread reports of corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Upon hearing the question, Arafat reportedly accused the reporter of being a member of the Israeli security services and promptly had him removed. The German reporter's fixer, a former Palestinian diplomat who had been based in Germany, convinced his foreign client to write Arafat a letter of apology, but Arafat refused to allow the reporter to return.[12]

On January 6, 2003, Seif al-Din Shahin, a senior Gaza correspondent for Qatar's Al Jazeera News Agency, was arrested by Arafat's Palestinian General Intelligence on charges of inflicting damage to the interests and reputation of the Palestinian people and their struggle, for reporting that the Al Aksa Brigades, part of the PLO's military wing, had claimed responsibility for the double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv the night before.[13]

* * *

Palestinian camera operators, frequently residents of the West Bank, today film the vast majority of foreign TV news coverage in the territories.[14]

Foreign news agencies have become dependent on Palestinians, since Israeli camera people are prohibited by the IDF from working in the Palestinian areas. Palestinian camera operators are also far less expensive than their Israeli or foreign news colleagues.

The result is that TV news pictures, broadcast internationally from the territories, focus daily on Palestinian dead and wounded, massive
demonstrations and funerals, close-ups of local hospital and morgue
victims, homes of mourning Palestinian families, and destroyed Palestinian buildings and fields. Missing is a measure of balance that might show images of the Palestinian-initiated violence, including shootings, bombings, and rocket attacks on Israeli troops and civilians, that prompt Israeli military responses.

Perhaps the best example of the pitfalls of reliance on Palestinian
cameramen was the filming of the death of young Muhammad al-Dura by
Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahamaworking for France 2 television.
While al-Dura, apparently killed in the crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian police, became a symbol of the intifada and was used as a blood libel against Israel, the photographer later denied claiming that the IDF killed the boy.[15]

Following several formal investigations, the raw footage of the shooting revealed that Palestinian photographers were part of the event and submitted edited footage to foreign networks. Another German inquiry went even further by concluding that Palestinians staged the killing with the cooperation of some foreign journalists and the United Nations.[16]

* * *

The lynching of two Israeli reservists inside a Palestinian police station in October 2000 would change the rules of Western news reporting on Palestinian violence. Nasser Atta, a Palestinian producer with ABC, recalled on Ted Koppel's Nightline how his cameraman was beaten and his crew prevented from filming the grisly lynchings.[17]

According to first-hand reports, Palestinian security forces also
surrounded a Polish TV crew who were beaten and relieved of their
tapes.[18] A foreign correspondent noted that in post-Ramallah where all good will was lost, he would be a lot more sensitive about going places in the territories.[19] A day after the Ramallah lynchings, an Italian journalist, who had suffered a separate beating by a rioting Arab mob in Jaffa, penned a letter in English to Palestinian officials promising never to violate journalistic ethics by transmitting film to an embassy or government.[20]

Following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, an AP photographer's life was threatened by Palestinian officials for taking photographs of widespread Palestinian street celebrations. Arafat's Cabinet Secretary, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, reportedly said, The Palestinian Authority cannot guarantee the life of the cameraman if the footage was broadcast.[21] Despite a strongly-worded protest by the Foreign Press Association to the Palestinian Authority, some foreign journalists made peace with the fact that intimidation is a price of reporting the conflict.[22]

* * *

Palestinian leaders have become well respected among the foreign press corps for welcoming foreign journalists as honored guests during meetings and interviews. Palestinian leaders also go to great lengths to make themselves available to correspondents even at inconvenient times. For example, PA official Saeb Erekat sent his personal chauffeured limousine to pick up a Danish reporter and film crew at an IDF checkpoint for an interview.[23]

In contrast, some leading foreign journalists have long complained about a general lack of cooperation by Israeli government officials toward the foreign press.[24] The Prime Minister's Office and IDF officials have been known to take several hours or more before issuing responses to breaking news in the territories, due in part to requirements of the military censor. Israeli authorities are also often reluctant to provide informative material to foreign news correspondents, even following terror attacks.[25]

Danny Seaman, Director of Israel's Government Press Office, has charged that Palestinian employees of several major international news agencies, including the Associated Press and Reuters, regularly coordinate their news coverage with Palestinian officials. According to the GPO, Marwan Barghouti, leader of Fatah in the West Bank and now imprisoned in Israel, issued early warnings to the foreign networks about impending Palestinian shooting attacks on Gilo, so that the film crews could capture Israeli return fire on neighboring Beit Jalla.[26]

Although Seaman's charges were rejected by Dan Perry, chairman of the
Foreign Press Association, Seaman has refused to renew press credentials for many Palestinian journalists and producers. Avigdor Yitzhaki, director general of the Prime Minister's Office, and Seaman's boss, commented: "Do you think that everywhere else, anyone can receive press credentials? I haven't seen any Iraqi journalists covering the President of the United States."[27]

* * *

NOTES:

[1] Interview with a senior international network news official, December 8, 2002.

[2] Bassem Eid, Palestinian human rights activist, November 17, 2002.
Palestinian opposition to discussing intra-Palestinian strife with the foreign press was also reported by a bureau chief of a major American daily newspaper at a meeting in Jerusalem on November 26, 2002.

[3] Judy Balint, Palestinian Harassment of Journalists, Worldnetdaily.com and Emunah magazine, February 25, 2001,
http://www.jerusalemdiaries.com/doc/20. Frequent instances of
self-censorship by Palestinian journalists were also confirmed in a
meeting with a deputy bureau chief of a leading Jerusalem-based news
agency, November 17, 2002.

[4] From the PMC website, http://www.palestine-pmc.com/about.asp.

[5] Bassem Eid, Palestinian human rights activist, November 17, 2002.

[6] According to a prominent fixer from eastern Jerusalem, who also
reports on Arab affairs for a major Israeli newspaper, November 29, 2002.

[7] Interview with a deputy bureau chief of a leading Jerusalem-based
international news agency, November 17, 2002.

[8] Moshe Cohen, former Arab affairs reporter, Israel Channel One News, November 14, 2002.

[9] Moshe Cohen, November 17, 2002.

[10] According to a well-known Palestinian fixer who works with leading European TV networks, November 29, 2002. Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid also confirmed this point on November 17, 2002.

[11] http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/arafat.cnna/.

[12] Bassem Eid, November 17, 2002. For other instances of Palestinian intimidation of the press, see Freedom House 2000 report,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2000/reports.html#ispa, and the 2000
Amnesty International Annual Report,
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.n...enafr?OpenView, Palestinian
Authority: Silencing Dissent (AI Index: MDE 21/016/2000).

[13] See HonestReporting.com,
http://honestreporting.com/articles..._Aviv_Fallout.a sp.

[14] According to a senior source at a Jerusalem-based international news organization, November 17, 2002.

[15] Who Killed Muhammad Al Dura? Blood Libel - Model 2000, Jerusalem
Viewpoints, No. 482, July 15, 2002, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Judy Balint, Palestinian Harassment of Journalists,
Worldnetdaily.com, February 25, 2001.

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] AP protests threats to freelance cameraman who filmed Palestinian rally, September 12, 2001,
http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/terrorism3.html.

[22] Judy Balint, Palestinian Harassment of Journalists.

[23] According to Moshe Maoz, an Israeli free-lance cameraman who works with Danish Television, December 8, 2002.

[24] Jay Bushinsky, former chairman, Foreign Press Association, in remarks made at the Ariel Media Conference, March 3, 2002.

[25] Working Paper, Israel in the New International Environment: The Media and Legal Arenas; The Balance of Israel's National Security, Herzliya Conference, December 2002.

[26] Why Israel's Image Suffers, interview with Government Press Office Director Danny Seaman, KolHair, October 13, 2002.

[27] Aviva Lori, The Seaman Code, Ha'aretz, December 27, 2002.

RELENTLESS ROAD MAP


On Sunday, the Sharon cabinet accepted in principle the road map � the first-ever Israeli governmental acceptance of a proposed Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis and Palestinians now begin the first effort to reach a settlement since the collapse of the Oslo process nearly three years ago.

The "Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" is an ambitious three-stage plan that calls for an end to terror attacks and a settlement freeze in the first stage, a Palestinian state with temporary borders in the second, and a final-status agreement by 2005.

We've been down a similar road before. And as we commence this new process, it is vital to recall the most recent, failed effort to achieve a two-state solution, the Oslo Accords.

What went wrong with Oslo?

This question is precisely the subject of the new HonestReporting film, Relentless, which documents Oslo's four main principles, and how each failed:

1) Oslo called for a Palestinian leadership that denounced violence and showed fiscal and diplomatic responsibility. However, Arafat expanded the terror, extorted funding, and continued to deny Israel's legitimacy.

2) Oslo called for dismantling of all terror organizations, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the confiscation of illegal weapons. In fact, the leaders of these groups were actually empowered by release from Palestinian prisons, entry to official office, smuggling of illegal weapons (Karine A), and the funneling of arms to terror factions.

3) Oslo called for ending incitement to violence, and education of the Palestinian population for peace. In fact, the P.A. used their media and textbooks to deny Israel's legitimacy, incite for the killing of Jews, and call for "holy war."

4) Oslo presumed that violations would trigger the cessation of the process. Despite explicit Palestinian violations, Israel continued to pursue the Oslo vision, ceding additional land at Wye in 1998, and presenting a deal at Camp David in July 2000 that far exceeded previous offers.

To understand the current road map, one must understand its testing ground, Oslo.

--- ISRAEL'S CONCERNS ---

Given the painful Oslo backdrop, Israel has raised 14 objections to the wording of the road map, objections Bush has pledged to address "fully and seriously"; the Israeli cabinet's endorsement of the road map on Sunday was contingent upon the full implementation of these concerns. This time around, the Israelis say, it must be different.

The 14 objections (aside from the Palestinian refugee issue) may be grouped into four main sections, remarkably similar to those that caused Oslo's downfall:

1) The emerging of a new and reformed Palestinian government. Indeed, President Bush called on the Palestinian people to elect leaders "not compromised by terror" as a precondition for the road map. The inference was clear to all � Yasser Arafat must go.

Enter Prime Minister Abu Mazen last month, and the road map was launched.

Yet just last week, Abu Mazen himself stated to an Egyptian weekly: "Arafat is at the top of the [Palestinian] Authority. He's the man to whom we refer, regardless of the American or Israeli view of him... We do not do anything without his approval."

2) The full dismantling of terror organizations. Yet no arrests have been made, and no illegal weapons have been confiscated. Meanwile, homicide bombings and missile attacks on Israeli cities continue apace, and just last week the Israeli Navy captured a Gaza-bound fishing boat carrying explosives, instructions for assembly, and a Hizbullah terror expert.

As recently as March, Abu Mazen legitimized the use of violence and terror: "The Intifada must continue. And it is the right of the Palestinian people to rise and to use all means at their disposal... all means even guns..." (A-Sharq Al Awsat, March 3, 2003)

3) The cessation of incitement against Israelis from official Palestinian sources. Yet lately, the PA has broadcast these "music videos": a) Actors portraying a fictitious torture of a Palestinian prisoner by an Israeli soldier; b) Actors portraying Israelis in Nazi-like activities, like IDF soldiers murdering an elderly Palestinian man by shooting him in the head, and a Palestinian mother and infant blown up by soldiers; c) Encouraging young children to throw stones at Israelis, while smashing Jewish symbols.

4) Full performance of each stage � monitored objectively � to serve as a condition for continuation. Is the road map's preconceived timeline realistic? According to the road map, May 2003 is the deadline for implementation of "Phase One": Ending terror and violence, normalizing Palestinian life, and building Palestinian institutions. Yet none of this has even begun. Does anyone seriously expect it all to be accomplished in the next three days?

The endorsement of the road map on Sunday indicated that Ariel Sharon � long vilified as a "hard-liner" � is now leading his country toward concessions for peace. Yet Sharon insists that this be predicated on a pragmatic, intelligent approach that avoids the four main problems that doomed Oslo.

Remarkably, many media outlets nonetheless found room for censuring Israel's endorsement of the road map. The Washington Post reported that "the deeply divided cabinet attached key conditions to the initiative that could make implementation problematic and ultimately doom it."

Comments to: [email protected]

HonestReporting encourages members to monitor your local media to see how they report the road map and Israel's insistence on pragmatic conditions.

And for essential analysis of Oslo and the current peace process, encourage your friends and family to attend an upcoming screening of the film Relentless:

May 29 - Hollywood, FL
May 29 - Park Slope, NY
June 2 - New York, NY
June 3 - Richmond, VA
June 8 - San Diego, CA
June 9 - Milwaukee, WI
June 10 - Toronto, Canada
June 16 - Chicago, IL
June 18 - Houston, TX
June 18 - Toronto, Canada
June 22 - Charleston, WV
June 22 - Brighton Beach, NY
June 25 - Sylvania, OH
June 25 - Detroit, MI

For more info, see Relentless online: www.honestreporting.com/relentless

***MEETING SUSPICION***


Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas meet today, and a summit meeting with President Bush is pegged for next Wednesday in Jordan. How quickly things turn � just one week ago Israelis were reeling from five Palestinian terror attacks and negotiations with an impotent Abu Mazen seemed distant; now Sharon and his cabinet have endorsed the road map and stand poised to bargain yet again in the hope for increased Israeli security.

Many journalists were caught off guard by this pivot � noting it favorably, but then reverting to knee-jerk, anti-Israel cynicism. Newsday claimed that "Sharon contradicted his own remarks - and the road map's basic premise - by failing to address the provocative and volatile issue of Jewish settlements."

The actual "basic premise" of Stage One of the road map is "Ending Terror and Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions." Newsday is entitled to their opinion, and factual mistakes happen, but here Newsday intentionally misrepresents the road map's emphasis on uprooting terror in an unethical attempt to bolster their editorial position on settlement policy.

Comments to: [email protected][/email]

Though recognizing the possibility that Sharon is sincere, most media outlets lent credence to the accusation that Sharon, "a crafty politician who knows how to buy time" (L.A. Times) may merely be conniving a "ploy to deflect international pressure" (Associated Press).

Where's the media suspicion for Abu Mazen's sincerity? After all, he has yet to bang down the door of a single Hamas member or to sideline the meddling Arafat � his key international mandates.

Comments to L.A. Times: [email protected]
Comments to AP: [email protected][/email]

--- SECURITY FENCE ---

While the road map is Israel's diplomatic push for security, the physical front for security is under construction in northern Israel � the first, 80 mile section of a planned 230-mile security fence has reached completion after nearly a year of work. IDF check posts along the fence will continue to permit passage of legal visitors and workers, but the barrier will prevent West Bank terrorists from stealthily crossing into Israel on murder missions.

The media have largely refused to acknowledge the fence's security role, condemning Israel with comparisons to zoo keeping and apartheid:

--- The International Herald Tribune published an op-ed calling the fence "a cage for Palestinians� the prison" that shamelessly robs Palestinians of their "original homeland."

No Israeli perspective is brought, nor mention of the territories' status (Hebron, Nablus, Shiloh, Bethlehem, Jericho, etc.) as the cradle of Jewish civilization, 2,000 years before Mohammed was born.

Comments to: [email][email protected]

--- BBC television on Sunday evening aired a program whose very title, "Behind the Fence," reveals a highly biased, pro-Palestinian perspective on the "wall of apartheid" (as the security fence was referred to in BBC promotion). The show's noxious effect upon its British audience � at peak viewing time � may be found on the BBC feedback page, where one viewer writes: "When I hear and see the way [Israelis] treat their neighbours I feel they treat others as they were treated in Nazi Germany. And, against all my natural emotions I am aware of growing hatred for them - the Israelis."

Comments to BBC 2's "Correspondent" (under whose auspices the program ran): [email protected]

The program's writer and producer, Inigo Gilmore, is the influential Israel correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph (and also writes for USA Today). Gilmore's BBC program certainly calls this journalist's objectivity into question. Comments regarding Gilmore may be sent to The Telegraph's foreign editor, Robin Gedye: [email][email protected].

--- MIDEAST "JOURNALISM" ---

This week, Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite news agency that broadcast post-9/11 interviews with Osama bin Laden, fired its veteran chief executive for collaborating with Saddam Hussein's intelligence services.

Al-Jazeera's reports are in increasing demand, however, in the West. In January, BBC granted al-Jazeera its seal of approval by signing an official news-exchange agreement. Many U.S. cable companies transmit the station, and Canadian cable providers are hoping to add al-Jazeera soon.

Al-Jazeera broke all standards of media decency by broadcasting pictures of tortured American POWs in March. Now the popular pro-Palestinian web site ElectronicIntifada has one-upped al-Jazeera with a posting of anti-Israeli filth that hides behind the shield of satire to vilify the "miserable occupying bastards."

Imagine the uproar if HonestReporting.com were to publish anti-Palestinian material of this nature.

--- AP: TURNING AWAY ---

President Bush met Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas together for the first time today in Aqaba, Jordan. The summit meeting featured a Palestinian declaration renouncing all terrorism against Israel and an Israeli promise to dismantle illegal settlement outposts.

Media coverage generally conveyed the cautious optimism felt by most Israelis, but an Associated Press report included a historical review that should raise eyebrows:

"The pursuit of Middle East peace has stymied American presidents for decades. Bill Clinton traveled to the region a half dozen times and devoted the closing days of his presidency to the search for a settlement. An agreement seemed within reach but then collapsed when Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak turned away."

"Ehud Barak turned away"? At Camp David in July 2000, Barak offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and 92% of the West Bank, and a capital in East Jerusalem � the most generous offer ever from an Israeli government. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer, ended negotiations without a counteroffer, and launched the past 33 months of anti-Israeli terror.

An accurate historical review, even in passing, must indicate which side has caused "the stymieing of Middle East peace for decades." The Arab League rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan which would have created a Palestinian state, and Israel's first 50 years were marked by repeated attempts of annihilation from neighboring Arab states. And let's not forget the Khartum Resolutions of 1967, when the Arab League issued the infamous three "no's": "No peace with Israel. No negotiations with Israel. No recognition of Israel."

It has consistently been Palestinians who "turned away" from peace. So why does AP's 55-word overview give no such indication?

Comments to AP: [email protected]

--- VEHICLES FOR TERROR ---

Israeli investigators have found that the British terrorists who carried out the deadly suicide bombing at Mike's Place in Tel Aviv on April 29 hitched a ride with an Italian journalist to gain entry to Israel from Gaza.

As a result of this incident and others, the IDF has tightened reporters' previously loose inspections at Gaza checkpoints; the International Federation of Journalists (representing 500,000 journalists in 100 countries) then criticized Israel for unwarranted "restrictions on media staff and foreigners entering the Gaza Strip."

Perhaps the IFJ's efforts would be better spent warning its members about terrorists' use of the media as a literal "vehicle for murder."

ROOTING OUT HAMAS?

On Sunday, four days after Hamas confessed to the Jerusalem bus massacre that left 17 dead and more than 100 injured, President Bush defended IDF anti-terror actions: "The free world and those who love freedom and peace must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers."

Hours after the President deliberately situated Hamas at the source of the ongoing violence, The New York Times published a kindly profile of Hamas entitled "Defining Hamas: Roots in Charity and Branches of Violence."

The tree metaphor in the headline suggests that a little pruning will leave Hamas merrily doling out schoolbooks and clothing in Gaza City. This is, in fact, the article's central claim: Hamas, established according to The Times on three "pillars" � "religion, charity and the fight against Israel" � has at its historical and moral "roots" concern for Palestinians' health and education. Given this benevolence, therefore, it's reasonable to expect that Hamas "could be persuaded to renounce violence" and accept a two-state solution.

Does communal charity really lie at Hamas' historical "roots"? The Times article offers absolutely no evidence to this effect, stating only that founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin established a social welfare group before launching Hamas. The very name Hamas is an acronym for "Islamic Resistance Movement" � no hint there of communal charity.

And though Hamas does provide certain social programs, its essential, overarching goal to destroy the State of Israel has never wavered since day one. As Hamas declared after Wednesday's bombing: "We call on all military cells to act immediately, like an earthquake, to blow up the Zionist entity and tear it to pieces." "I swear by God," said Abdel Aziz Rantisi last week, "we will not leave a single Jew in Palestine."

The Times characterizes Hamas as having "three pillars: religion, charity, and the fight against Israel." This segmentation mirrors the mistake the media make in calling Sheik Yassin "Hamas' spiritual leader" � implying he is a holy man and not a terrorist. In the same vein, the media commonly label Rantisi Hamas' "political leader" � implying he's a statesman and not a terrorist.

The U.S. State Department classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization, and has frozen all Hamas assets, across the board, without distinction.

The Times' distorted portrayal of Hamas undermines Israel's and America's determination to eliminate this murderous organization � the largest roadblock to regional peace, rooted not in charity, but rather in terrorism and the furious rejection of Israel's very right to exist.

Comments to: [email protected][/email]

--- HAMAS UNSPUN ---

Some media outlets see Hamas clearly for what it is:

-- Toronto Globe and Mail: "Hamas is the exact analogue of al-Qaeda, an extremist group whose aim is not to change the policies and practices of its enemy, but to annihilate and exterminate. There can be no parley with such a foe. No nation would do differently than Israel has done when faced with the sustained terrorist assault that it has endured over the past three years."

Comments to: [email protected]

-- St. Louis Post Dispatch: There is no "moral equivalency between Israeli and Palestinian attacks. Hamas' bombing of innocent civilians on the Jerusalem bus is a savage act of terrorism. Israel is justified in attacking Hamas leaders as armed combatants, just as the United States is justified in attacking al-Qaida."

Comments to: [email][email protected]

***THIS MESSAGE WILL SELF-DESTRUCT***

TIT-FOR-TAT

Despite the peace efforts, deadly terror continues: On Wednesday, Palestinian terrorists gunned down 7-year old Noam Leibowitz on an Israeli highway, and Thursday morning in Sde Terumot, a Palestinian homicide bomber killed Avner Mordechai in his small grocery store. Police believe that Mordechai confronted the terrorist to prevent him from alighting upon an approaching public bus.

How have the media covered the attacks? Typical was Reuters, which headlined its Wednesday report, "Israeli Girl Killed, Fueling Cycle of Violence," then situated this shooting among "tit-for-tat Israel-Palestinian attacks" that have marked the past two weeks.

The media's terms "cycle of violence" and "tit-for-tat" killing have been repeated ad nauseum to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past three years. HonestReporting readers will recall our addressing these terms on numerous occasions, but as their use continues to expand, the need for grassroots response grows. The problem is as follows:

1) "Cycle of violence" describes a circular relationship between two combatants, neither of whom constitutes its causal source.

Historical Arab rejection of Israel belies this, but a more intuitive test does just as well: If Palestinian terror were to cease entirely, the IDF would certainly stop military action against Palestinians. The result: Total calm. If, on the other hand, the IDF were to disappear, Hamas and company would continue to pursue their official charter, which calls for a jihad to "obliterate Israel" and "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." This is no circular "cycle," but rather a linear assault upon Israel, which acts in pointed self-defense.

2) "Tit-for-tat" suggests equivalent intent and methods.

To put it bluntly, an Israeli "tit-for-tat" response to the past two days would include IDF sharpshooters targeting a Palestinian child as she traveled with her family, and the IDF placing a bomb in a Palestinian grocery store. This, of course, has never and would never occur. What the IDF does do � target terrorists � is designed to reduce the violence and give the road map a chance. Hamas and company, after all, continue to state emphatically that they want absolutely no part in the peace talks.

Why would Reuters use such false neutral terms? Reuters would claim this preserves "media balance," not favoring one side's position over another. This same attitude led Steven Jukes, Reuters' global head of news, to institute a policy not to refer to the September 11 attacks as "terror." But in doing so, Reuters creates a dangerous equivalence between terror and anti-terror efforts, conferring upon terrorists some moral legitimacy.

Comments to Reuters: [email protected][/email]

The use of the terms "cycle of violence" and "tit-for-tat killing" has spread beyond Reuters to many local, mainstream papers such as:

-- The Baltimore Sun
Comments to: [email protected]

-- Abilene (TX) Reporter
Comments to: [email protected][/email]

-- San-Jose Mercury News
Comments to: [email][email protected]

-- Detroit Free Press
Comments to: [email][email protected]

Why is protesting this terminology so important? As Diana Buttu, legal advisor to the PLO, recently noted, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "a battle over language sometimes more than over anything else."


--- MEDIA WATCHDOGS MULTIPLYING ---

Report from the Boston Globe: In the wake of the New York Times' Jayson Blair scandal, readers across North America are becoming much more demanding regarding newspaper accuracy. "Passivity is giving way to more aggressive public scrutiny," the Globe found. "With newspapers openly soliciting greater public vigilance and the Times's problems turning journalistic accuracy into a water-cooler topic, more readers are turning into whistle-blowers."

ok i didnt read all the posts in this theard but i will replay to the topic:

media in israel is definetly aginst israel and this is my ranking for the years 2003-2002 when the first hates israel the most:

1.sky news (england) - i dont know how much stories about poor pla" iv"e seen there and never about israelis + they speack on israel with a hate tone (i dont know how to explain)
2.bbc news (england) -- i remmember once i hated them the most becuse they have said the actions in jenin for example without explaining why israel took action in order to defend itself
3.cnn (WW)-- sometimes they put some idiots like arafat erkat or somebody else from their gang or rven a pla" mother of someone on the mic and they start crying on how israel trying to kill them and hurt them and they sat how much terror is bed and after that they go "raving" on the street with candies and stuff and clearly they dont beilive in the shit they say
4.FoX (usa)[ownz!!!]


i dont know how else to explain this but they just tick me they have no mercy for the people they see hurt from israel and they arent telling the real story and

btw did anybody noticed that when there"s a teror atack in israel theres always business news on Cnn?

and another thing i didnt saw much TV time on the first 3 channels on Karim A last year

i know this sound a little stupid but if you were in israel youve could have seen they are clearly aginst us

HUDNA WITH HAMAS

As U.S. Secretary of State Powell winds up his Mideast trip, Palestinian leaders appear on the verge of announcing a hudna.

The Associated Press declared that "the success of peacemaking may well hang on a legal concept dating to the birth of Islam: a hudna, or a truce of a fixed duration."

The New York Times added Monday that a hudna would constitute "a major breakthrough... out of 33 months of violence."

Would a hudna with Hamas really mark "the success of peacemaking," a "major breakthrough" toward a nonviolent future?

The answer lies in the historical meaning of the Muslim expression, Hamas' track record, and the terms of the road map itself.

Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.

When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.

As for Hamas, they have proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna � replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.

Israeli leadership is convinced, therefore, that yet another hudna would jeopardize three years of painstaking IDF anti-terror work that has left Hamas and Islamic Jihad reeling. As IDF Major-General Amos Gilad said on Monday, "For us as a nation, it is forbidden to interest ourselves in this hudna, which is a threat to any kind of peace." Echoing Gilad's words is the road map itself, which calls for the PA to "arrest, disrupt, and restrain" terror leaders � not granting an opportunity for replenishing their strength.

Colin Powell reinforced this on Friday when labeling Hamas "an enemy of peace" and stating: "I am anxious to speak to Prime Minister Abbas about efforts they are making to bring violence under control, to end violence, not just through the means of having a cease-fire, but going beyond that ... to end violence and the capacity for violence."

* * *

Given the religious, historical and diplomatic facts regarding the actual meaning of hudna, it is disturbing to see the media nearly everywhere translate the term to English as "truce":

-- Fox News: "Palestinians Say Hamas Discussing Truce"

-- Hartford Courant: "Hamas Considers a Pragmatic Truce"

-- Anchorage Daily News: "Palestinian Officials See Hamas Truce On Horizon"

To a Western audience, "truce" suggests a Hamas commitment to peaceful resolution. This is, as we've seen, simply not the meaning of hudna.

Yet on Monday's major wires, Reuters casts Israel as the villain for rejecting a hudna: "Israel Pours Scorn on Truce With Militants."

Associated Press falsely presents the hudna as a fulfillment of the road map's demand to uproot terror:

"A truce is crucial for implementing a U.S.-backed peace plan, the 'road map' to Palestinian statehood by 2005. In the first stage, the Palestinians must dismantle militant groups, while Israel must gradually withdraw to positions held before the outbreak of fighting 33 months ago."

The road map to peace � and the memory of scores of terror victims � demand much more than hudna.

Dude...why do you have to post entire articles? I think people are smart enough to be able to go to the website themselves!

lol

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Dude...why do you have to post entire articles? I think people are smart enough to be able to go to the website themselves!

Don't start annoying me...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.