This part of the recent AP article–which article, of course, goes unedited in thousands of newspapers around the world–is a perfect example of the anti-Israel media bias via lack of context.
The violence this week began Monday with Israel’s killing of a top Islamic Jihad gunman. An Islamic Jihad revenge bombing Wednesday killed five Israelis, and on Thursday, missiles fired at a car from Israeli aircraft killed four Islamic Jihad members and three bystanders.
The authors of the road map peace plan – the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union – took a strong stand against Palestinian militants on Friday, demanding that Syria immediately shut down the offices of the militant Islamic Jihad group in Damascus and prevent use of Syrian territory for acts of terror.
Islamic Jihad has been responsible for the most violent attacks against Israeli targets since a February cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians, including a suicide bombing on Wednesday.
The Monday to which the writer refers is October 24th. So the reader is led to believe that on Monday, Israel up and decided to go after Islamic Jihad. There is no reason given. Why would Israel suddenly decide to return to her practice of targeted assassination? Well, without context, one would think simply because Israel wants to do so. But let’s step back in time a whole ‘nother week. I know that’s asking a lot, but let’s do it:
Israel slapped tough travel restrictions on the West Bank after Palestinian gunmen killed three young Israelis and wounded four others in a drive-by shooting at a crowded bus stop near Jewish settlements.
The Palestinian attack near the Gush Etzion block of settlements yesterday was the bloodiest since July, and it followed warnings from Isaeli intelligence that with Israel’s pullout from Gaza last month, Palestinian militants would shift their focus to the West Bank.
Minutes after the bus stop attack, militants carried out a second drive-by shooting, targeting an Israeli vehicle in the another part of the West Bank, seriously wounding an Israeli, officials said.
Oh. Terrorists murdered Israelis before any of the targeted assassinations occurred. How about that? Who knew?
The AP knew.
That’s their article I quoted from.
But when it comes to Israel, there is never any justification for “violence.” The AP leaves the justification to the “militants” figting the “resistance.”
File this under “Reason Number 5,473 Why I Hate The Media.” Because by omitting context, the AP is effectively lying by omission.
Kinda makes you with that the errant Qassadms or ones that blow up upon ignition would take out a few AP/Reuters stringers filming the event, eh?
Analysis: Abbas’s dilemma By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
To add to that Israel’s channel 10 showed that the video the bomber made before he blew up in Hadera was made before Sa’adi was killed.
The truly bad thing is that the MSM help
spread the lies and spin.
It is funny that the Quartet
made no objection to Syria’s infusion of arms into the Palestinian camps in Lebanon.
But then that’s a Hezbollah of another colour.
I guess the AP figures history begins anew each Monday.
Cynic’s post is very important. It is apparent now that Abbas’ organization is conducting terrorism without letup. One must conclude they are doing it with his approval, if not at his direct orders. So the President of the PA is, once again, a terrorist. Shzdes of Arafat.
You have it exactly right, Mike. I hereby announce yet another milestone in analysis right here on Meryl’s website: the Bensky Bifurcated Historical Analysis System.
On the one hand, if the Arabs asre still smoldering over the crusades or the Reconquista, that only shows how authentic they are and in touch with their roots. Aren’t they colorful and picturesque?
On the other hand, Middle Eastern history began this morning. So bringing up what happened last week, much less in 1948, is entirely irrelevant. Any Israeli action is therefore by definition only contributing to the cycle of violence, a cycle for which, if it didn’t start this morning,the Arabs aren’t responsible.
By corollary, the Arabs aren’t responsible for anything they do and it is cultural imperialism, not to mention insensitive, to expect that they are. That’s why in any discussion of the Arab-Israel conflict (note I do not say “Palestinian-Israel conflict”), mentioning the state the Palestinians could have had if they’d accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan is not only irrelevant but culturally hegemonic in that it imposes Western standards on Arabs.
Michael Lonie
So like Arafatian politics. Deja vu?
I see it as exactly the same as when Arafat ran things.
Is it going to take a new US president to see through Abbas?