Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Why not Report the Truth?
The following quotes are taken from this Arutz Sheva article.
1. Knight-Ridder News agency, a major news source for American dailies, reported, " 'I want to destroy everything here as they did the Al Aqsa mosque,' said Mahmoud Malahi. Why didn't the article that this apeared in, at least point out that Israel has NEVER damaged the Al Aqsa complex.
2.'I want to destroy everything here. It's a symbol of occupation. Destroying it is a symbol of Islam.' So did Mr. Malahi slip here. Is destroying somethinga symbol of the 'Religion of Peace.'
3. Reporters for British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), reporting on the Arab mobs that overwhelmed the Gush Katif ruins, told viewers that Israel "stole" the Gaza region. "Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them. Today, many were ready to take back anything they could," BBC reported. Perhaps someone should teach the BBC reporters a little bit of history. The Gaza Region 'stolen?' Does this also make Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Gibralter, The Faulken Islands, etc also stolen property. They have been controlled far longer than 38 years, do the residents of those regions also have the right to 'take back anything they could.' Some how I have a slight feeling that if someone suggested this to those 'holier-than-thou' reporters they would find some reason that it wasn't the same, but I think the basic reason is that the Brits aren't Jews.
4. The Scotsman news agency reported that the Cabinet decision not to destroy the synagogues "dampened any hopes for a more peaceful era." Did I miss something. How does leaving nice building standing that could have been used for a number of things 'dampen' anything. And the 'hopes for a more peaceful era' seem to be more on the Israeli side than the Palestinian side, where Hamas and other groups are still threatening violence.
5. The New York Times implied that Israel was at fault for the destruction and told its readers, "Israel had leveled all the other buildings in the settlements in an agreement with the Palestinians but chose, at the last minute, not to destroy the synagogues because a number of Israeli conservatives argued that it was wrong for Jews to destroy synagogues. As a result, settlement synagogues were standing and vulnerable to vandalism." Okay, Israel asked to get the PA to protect the synagoges, but Israel is at fault for the destruction. Isn't this at least slightly like blaming the survivors of Katrina in New Orleans for being the victims of the storm. There was, additionally, no agreement with the Palestinians to anything. It was a UNILATERAL withdrawl, and on the off chance that the NYT doesn't understand the meaning of unilateral, the Isreali Government decided WITHOUT negotiations to leave Gaza, therefore there could not be an agreement to do anything. There had been some small negotiations about issues surrounding the withdrawl for security, but this type of thing would not have been covered.
The article has several other examples, but I am tired of this kind of crap constantly being published. Shouldn't a journalistic endeavor be responsible enough to report the truth, or at least not distort reality.
1. Knight-Ridder News agency, a major news source for American dailies, reported, " 'I want to destroy everything here as they did the Al Aqsa mosque,' said Mahmoud Malahi. Why didn't the article that this apeared in, at least point out that Israel has NEVER damaged the Al Aqsa complex.
2.'I want to destroy everything here. It's a symbol of occupation. Destroying it is a symbol of Islam.' So did Mr. Malahi slip here. Is destroying somethinga symbol of the 'Religion of Peace.'
3. Reporters for British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), reporting on the Arab mobs that overwhelmed the Gush Katif ruins, told viewers that Israel "stole" the Gaza region. "Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them. Today, many were ready to take back anything they could," BBC reported. Perhaps someone should teach the BBC reporters a little bit of history. The Gaza Region 'stolen?' Does this also make Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Gibralter, The Faulken Islands, etc also stolen property. They have been controlled far longer than 38 years, do the residents of those regions also have the right to 'take back anything they could.' Some how I have a slight feeling that if someone suggested this to those 'holier-than-thou' reporters they would find some reason that it wasn't the same, but I think the basic reason is that the Brits aren't Jews.
4. The Scotsman news agency reported that the Cabinet decision not to destroy the synagogues "dampened any hopes for a more peaceful era." Did I miss something. How does leaving nice building standing that could have been used for a number of things 'dampen' anything. And the 'hopes for a more peaceful era' seem to be more on the Israeli side than the Palestinian side, where Hamas and other groups are still threatening violence.
5. The New York Times implied that Israel was at fault for the destruction and told its readers, "Israel had leveled all the other buildings in the settlements in an agreement with the Palestinians but chose, at the last minute, not to destroy the synagogues because a number of Israeli conservatives argued that it was wrong for Jews to destroy synagogues. As a result, settlement synagogues were standing and vulnerable to vandalism." Okay, Israel asked to get the PA to protect the synagoges, but Israel is at fault for the destruction. Isn't this at least slightly like blaming the survivors of Katrina in New Orleans for being the victims of the storm. There was, additionally, no agreement with the Palestinians to anything. It was a UNILATERAL withdrawl, and on the off chance that the NYT doesn't understand the meaning of unilateral, the Isreali Government decided WITHOUT negotiations to leave Gaza, therefore there could not be an agreement to do anything. There had been some small negotiations about issues surrounding the withdrawl for security, but this type of thing would not have been covered.
The article has several other examples, but I am tired of this kind of crap constantly being published. Shouldn't a journalistic endeavor be responsible enough to report the truth, or at least not distort reality.
// posted by Little Wolf @ Tuesday, September 13, 2005 
