Chronicle Editorial Misrepresents Bush Quote

The San Francisco Chronicle‘s June 26 editorial entitled “Stop-and-go on Mideast truce” misrepresents the U.S. position vis-a-vis Hamas and distorts the widely quoted words of President Bush regarding the group’s potential declaration of a cease-fire, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

 

The editorial takes the quote out of context, wrongly linking President Bush’s skeptical comment to Israeli counter-terrorism measures. In fact, his reference was to an ultimate dismantling of the terrorist group Hamas. When asked for his reaction to a potential cease-fire by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah at a press conference with European Union leaders on June 25, the President stated:

 

 

I’ll believe it when I see it, knowing the history of the terrorists in the Middle East. But the true test for Hamas and terrorist organizations is the complete dismantlement of their terrorist networks, their capacity to blow up the peace process … . It’s one thing to make a verbal agreement. But in order for there to be peace in the Middle East, we must see organizations such as Hamas dismantled, and then we’ll have peace. Then we’ll have a chance for peace … In order for there to be peace, Hamas must be dismantled [emphasis added].

 

The U.S. administration has been united on this point, and Colin Powell and others have repeated the group’s need to disband. Even Hamas knows the pressure is on. Witness the statement of one of its top leaders to thousands last week in Gaza: “Powell is considering Hamas now an enemy of peace.”

 

Similarly, the Chronicle fails to convey the centrality of an end to terror as a first step in any Mideast peace deal. In a list of “difficult issues standing in the way of success in the peace effort,” terrorism is omitted entirely.

 

Counter to the editorial, “obstacles … hidden in the hearts of leading players” do not constitute the main stumbling blocks to a lasting Mideast peace. The U.S. president has said it, the Secretary of State has said it, and many administration officials have repeated it. It is Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the war of terror on Israelis that block the way to peace.

UPDATED: Bill Moyers Mistaken About Road Map, Oslo; Misrepresents CAMERA’s Criticism

In a June 6, 2003 broadcast riddled with factual errors and misrepresentations, PBS’s “NOW with Bill Moyers” spotlighted Israeli settlements, their role in the ongoing conflict, and their possible funding via fungible American taxpayer dollars to Israel. Initially, Moyers was unresponsive to CAMERA’s repeated efforts to elicit a correction. And when he finally did a segment on viewers’ mail on June 27, Moyers wrongly paraphrased CAMERA’s criticisms, seriously misrepresenting the organization’s objections.

 

Factual Errors in the Original Report

 

Correspondent Bob Abeshouse incorrectly reported:

 

The American-backed plan called for a freeze on the growth of settlements and their eventual removal to make way for a Palestinian state. (emphasis added).

 

In fact, the road map does not call for the “eventual removal” of settlements. Phase I of the plan says:

 

+ GOI [Government of Israel] dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
+ Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

 

Thus, while the plan calls for the dismantling of certain “settlements outposts” and a freeze on settlement growth, there is no mention of “eventual removal” of settlements. Furthermore, Phase III notes that settlements are a topic yet to be resolved. It states:

 

+ Second International Conference: Convened by Quartet, in consultation with the parties, at beginning of 2004 to endorse agreement reached on an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and formally to launch a process with active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet, leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements . . . (emphasis added)

 

If the plan called for the “eventual removal” of settlements, as Abeshouse claimed, why would Phase III specify that the parties engage in negotiations “leading to a final, permanent status resolution”? The Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal have both printed corrections making clear that the “road map” does not require Israel to remove all settlements (May 3 and May 21, respectively).

 

Second, Abeshouse similarly distorted the contents of the earlier Oslo Accords, stating:

 

The accords promised a Palestinian state in return for Israeli security. The signers envisioned a slowing of settlement growth and the removal of settlements. . .

 

Actually, the accords made no such promise regarding a Palestinian state. The “road map” is the first Palestinian-Israeli accord which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Likewise, the Oslo Accords themselves said nothing about the “slowing of settlement growth and the removal of settlements,” so it is highly deceptive for Abeshouse to claim that the signers “envisioned” these steps.

 

Misrepresentations

 

Abeshouse’s description of extreme anti-Israel activist Jeff Halper was also misleading. The reporter described Halper as “an anthropologist and peace activist who believes Israel should get out of the occupied territories. He was born in Minnesota but has lived in Israel for 30 years and is an Israeli citizen.”

 

Halper, the co-ordinator of a fringe group called the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, advocates the end of Israel as a Jewish state (March 2000 appeal, “House Demolitions: The Way Towards a Just and Viable Peace?”) Moreover, the so-called “peace activist” has defended the actions of suicide bombers. He has been quoted as saying: “If Palestinians end their terrorism, they’re lost” because no one will pay attention to their cause. “If they don’t resist, Israel is not going to end the occupation.” (Washington Jewish Week, Oct. 10, 2002). In a report about a topic as sensitive as Israeli settlements, why would PBS give a platform to a speaker who not only opposes Israel’s presence in the “occupied territories,” but who questions the right of a Jewish state to exist at all?

 

Halper’s view that Israel has no place in the Middle East is a position widely shared by Israel’s enemies in the region. This rejectionism, which many say is “at the heart of the feud” between Arabs and Israelis, is barely mentioned in the June 6 broadcast, and when it is, it is at the very end as an aside.

 

Instead, in the introduction, Moyers alleged that it is solely the West Bank that is at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

 

This postage stamp of land is at the heart of the feud between Israelis and Palestinians, Semitic cousins who can’t stand each other, but can’t let each other alone.

 

Omissions

 

In a broadcast investigating the settlements and their role in the ongoing conflict, why was there no questioning whether an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza would end the conflict? After all, Israel offered a full withdrawal from Gaza, an almost 100 percent withdrawal from the West Bank, and compensation in the form of land from Israel proper during the Camp David/Taba talks. But, Yasir Arafat rejected the offer, without even tabling a counter-proposal. If the “core of the conflict” were simply the West Bank, the dispute could have been resolved years ago. The broadcast included an interview with Ehud Barak but omitted reference to his offer to remove and/or consolidate many settlements, an offer Arafat rejected. Why did Abeshouse fail to present such crucial information?

 

One-sided Reporting

 

Abeshouse also inflated the settlements’ role in the ongoing dispute, particularly in reference to the “road map.” He stated:

 

. . . now the settlements are at the center of the debate over what’s known as the road map.

 

While this statement reflects Palestinian sentiment, Israelis have a different take on the situation. Israelis view Palestinian terrorism as the center of the debate over the “road map.” In particular, Israelis take issue with Prime Minister Abbas’ refusal to dismantle terrorist groups, opting instead to negotiate with them despite the fact that the “road map” explicitly requires that they be dismantled. Phase I of the plan states:

 

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

 

An objective report would have noted that Palestinians view settlements as the center of the debate, while Israelis see ongoing terrorism as the core dispute.

 

Likewise, now that “Now with Bill Moyers” has investigated U.S. aid to Israel and its impact on Israeli settlements, when will the program address American dollars to Palestinian NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and its fungibility with respect to terrorism? When will the program probe the use of fungible dollars to promote genocidal propaganda on official Palestinian television, and by PA-appointed clergymen?

 

Update:  June 27, 2003  Moyers Misrepresents CAMERA’s Comments

 

On the June 27 segment on viewers’ mail, Moyers seriously misrepresented CAMERA’s comments concerning the “road map” and Israeli settlement growth. He stated:

 

 

We had a long letter from Tamar Sternthal of Boston. She says it was incorrect of us to report that the American plan for peace, the road map, calls for a freeze on the growth of the settlements and their eventual removal to make way for a Palestinian state. She says it was quote “highly deceptive” of us to claim that the signers of the 1993 Oslo Accords envisioned those same steps. And she says it was incorrect again to say that the Oslo Accords promised a Palestinian state in return for Israeli security. How to interpret the Oslo Accords and the road map is, of course, a matter of great debate.

 

CAMERA’s original June 17 communication to Moyers about the June 6 Abeshouse report stated the diametric opposite of what Moyers claimed it said. It actually stated:

 

 

Thus, while the plan calls for the dismantling of certain “settlement outposts” and a freeze on settlement growth, there is no mention of “eventual removal” of settlements.

 

That is, CAMERA had agreed with Abeshouse’s report that the “road map” called for a settlement freeze. Instead, Moyers claimed on national television that CAMERA had contested that fact. (Actually, he never acknowledged on air that the criticism came from CAMERA, referring only to “Tamar Sternthal of Boston.”)

 

Finally, Moyers dismisses the criticism concerning his misrepresentation of the terms of the “road map” and the Oslo Accords by claiming that their interpretation is “a matter of great debate.” What is not a matter of debate is that there are written documents spelling out the requirements of each side. And neither the Oslo Accords in the past nor the “road map” in 2003 stipulate Israel’s “removal of settlements.” Moyers does his viewers a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

AP Misrepresents Fate of Iraqi Jewry

In “Attacks persist in Iraq; clerics rail against Americans” (June 20), Associate Press reporter Tarek Al-Issawi seriously misleads readers as to the nature of the exodus of Iraqi Jewry before and after the founding of the state of Israel.

 

Al-Issawi, in chronicling Jewish flight from Iraq, states that Jews “began emigrating in the 1940s and 1950s, before and after establishment of Israel.”

 

This is more than understatement. The Iraqi Jewish community, 150,000 strong in 1947, fled within the span of one year, and only 6,000 remained by the end of 1951. Already in 1935, Zionist activity had been declared illegal, Jews were being attacked on the streets, and in June 1941, a pogrom in Baghdad left over 900 Jews dead and thousands injured (Jews of Arab and Islamic Countries: History, Problems, Solutions by Heskel M. Haddad).

 

In May 1948, the situation intensified when the Iraqi government imprisoned Jews on grounds of being Zionists, and fined or executed others. With no future in Iraq, the Jewish community fled en masse, mostly to Israel. Between July 1950 and August 1951, 144,000 of 150,000 Jews left the country at the cost of their citizenship and all their assets.

 

The situation worsened when the Ba’athists came to power in 1963, with Iraqi Jews being accused and executed on charges of “Zionism” and espionage for the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1969, 11 Jews were hanged in the public square in Baghdad. Today, a handful of Jews remain.

 

The history of Iraqi Jewry is not one of “emigration” but persecution.

CAMERA Op-Ed: National Public Radio’s Predictable Evasions

Nothing underscores National Public Radio’s shoddy Middle East reporting and evasion of accountability quite like its official rejoinders to criticism. News Vice President Bruce Drake replied to a Jerusalem Post column critical of NPR coverage (“National Public Radio Off the Map,” May 23, 2003) dodging and obfuscating in familiar style.

The column had noted the network’s chronic refusal to cover the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate indoctrination by Palestinian media, schools, mosques and political figures that fuels terrorism against innocent Israelis. NPR’s first reports on the road map had, true to form, included only passing mention of the need to end such incitement — this presented in a single phrase in one sentence by an Israeli official. The same segment included a much-reiterated NPR theme that Israeli actions “inflame” Palestinian hatred, turning “peace supporters” into “Hamas supporters.”

Unable, of course, to cite any NPR coverage of hate indoctrination, Drake pronounced the piece with the Israeli official a “balanced presentation of the views of both sides.” He claimed oddly that the Post column had “neglected” to note the Israeli official’s reference to incitement, which it very specifically had.

Ignoring without comment other errors and distortions criticized in the column, Drake concluded: “In her effort to depict NPR’s coverage as one-sided, Levin also conveniently omits Linda Gradstein’s May 9 story in which she visited the settlement of Efrat to get the reaction of Jewish settlers to the latest peace initiative. There were many other studied omissions in Levin’s column, but I’ll leave it there.”

In fact, the original column noted that while ignoring the hate-indoctrination subject, NPR predictably “allotted a whole program to an issue frequently reported by the network: settlements.” But Drake not only goofed in his claim that the settlements story was unmentioned — he was deceptive, to put it politely, in characterizing that segment as being focused on “the reaction of Jewish settlers to the latest peace initiative.” In fact, the piece was largely concentrated on a Peace Now activist critical of settlements.

NPR would certainly prefer, in Drake’s words, to “leave it there,” glide over distortions and errors and, however biased its coverage and laughably sloppy its rejoinders to critics, continue to broadcast agenda-driven “news.” Thus he had nothing to say about criticism of Linda Wertheimer’s erroneous caricature of Ariel Sharon as “a tough customer” who is “extremely tough in his responses to every act of terrorism…” As the column pointed out, citing just one such example, NPR itself reported that Sharon exercised “restraint” and did not respond to the terrorist slaughter of 22 young people at the Dophinarium in June 2001.

“Tough customer” and “hard-liner” are simply automatic tag-lines for the Israeli prime minister. Hamas leader Sheik Yassin, on the other hand, is a “spiritual leader.” Similarly, on NPR, “terrorists” are those who kill Americans in the Twin Towers or civilians in the Philippines. Jewish civilians blown up in the buses, streets and cafes of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are not victims of “terrorists” but of “militants.”

The bias goes on. Trademark NPR programs continually amplify the messages of fringe voices critical of Israel, inevitably presented as peace-loving. A May 27 broadcast told of a newly recruited Jewish “peace activist…” in the International Solidarity Movement. According to NPR’s Linda Gradstein, who has reported admiringly about ISM members previously, this “Palestinian-led organization [is] committed to nonviolent resistance.” ISM founders Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf say otherwise. “We accept that the Palestinians have a right to resist with arms” they write. “Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent…” They also believe Palestinians killed in nonviolent protests will have died in a manner “… no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah.” (Palestine Chronicle, January 2002)

Nor is Gradstein evidently troubled by ISM members’ ties to terrorists. Two “activists” hid suspected terrorist Shadi Suqiyeh in a Jenin office and helped him try to evade arrest, while others served tea to two terrorists who blew up Mike’s, a Tel Aviv night club, killing three and injuring 60 more.

Another story focusing on another fringe group critical of Israel aired a day later, its featured subjects a tiny group of religious settlers who believe Israel is behaving immorally, abuses the Palestinians and must abandon the settlements. The NPR host did note in a line at the close that many more religious Jews disagree.

As author and columnist Zev Chafets has said, “NPR has such a relentless point of view that you know what it thinks if you listen to it – and you know what it thinks if you don’t.”

What many listeners think is Americans should not be taxed to support a “public” radio network that violates the norms of journalism and the federal statutes mandating objectivity and balance, under which it receives funding.

Originally published in Jerusalem Post on June 20, 2003.

New York Times Veers Off the ‘Road Map’

The New York Times has trouble reporting the facts
straight about Middle East documents, repeatedly distorting their terms and
shifting responsibility — and fault — to Israel. Recent
misinformation about the road map by correspondent Steven Weisman is fuel for
critics who see the paper increasingly marshaling its news pages to advance an
editorial agenda.

 

Weisman and the Times are particularly
reading-impaired when the document includes reference to Jewish
“settlements.”

 

On May 12, a front page story above the fold stated in flat
contradiction to the written terms of the road map peace initiative that with
regard to “Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza” the
“peace plan calls for their dismantling…”

 

The road map does no such thing. It addresses this large
issue in broad terms, leaving the resolution to final status negotiation, and
it uses the word “dismantle” only with respect to certain satellite
outposts recently built.

 

Specifically, in “Phase I” the document calls for
a settlement freeze and the dismantling of “outposts erected since March
2001.” In “Phase II” the document refers to “further action
on settlements in conjunction with creation of a Palestinian state with
provisional borders.” The last reference in “Phase III” is to
“a final, permanent status resolution” considering issues such as
“borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements…”

 

Challenged to correct the false settlement-dismantling
assertion, the Times instead dissembled. On May 21, Weisman wrote:
“The peace plan calls implicitly for settlements to be dismantled as part
of a final settlement, its drafters say.”

 

Which “drafters”? Weisman neglects to name those
who see Israel as having “implicitly” forfeited ahead of time its
rights of negotiation on a major issue.

 

Moreover, although the road map similarly leaves resolution
of the issue of “refugees” to “permanent
status”discussions, the Times has not reported that it is
“implicitly” understood there is no so-called “right of
return” for Palestinians to pre-1948 Israel. Nor has it presented such a
view as fact, as it has its interpretation of the settlement matter.

 

A Weisman story on May 22 filled with half a dozen unnamed
sources — “an informed diplomat” here and “an
administration official” and “knowledgeable” source there —
is indicative of the partisanship underlying the reporter’s coverage. He
defines the road map as “a phased timetable to create a Palestinian
state.” That is, indeed, the Palestinians’ primary aim, but Israel
does have goals as well.

 

Though disregarded here by the Times, they are
actually written into the road map. Israel’s overriding concern is that
the initiative entails finally an end to terrorist violence and acceptance of
Israel’s legitimacy.

 

May 23 brought another Weisman story replete with anonymous
sources — this time citing unnamed “administration officials” as
well as “many in Washington” — all nameless — critical of
the Sharon government.

 

In addition, a “correction” ran underscoring the
paper’s refusal to simply report the facts. It read:

 

A front-page story
on May 12 about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, his talks in Jerusalem and
the Bush administration’s efforts to bring peace to the Middle East referred
imprecisely to the peace plan drawn up by the United States, the United
Nations, the European Union and Russia. The plan, known to diplomats as the
road map, is understood by its authors and by Israel and the Palestinians to
entail the eventual dismantling of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and
Gaza. But that understanding is not stated explicitly.

 

While a number of major national newspapers had also
reported erroneously on the terms of the road map with regard to settlements
and had issued corrections, each had simply stated the terms of the road map.
Only the New York Times inserted its interpretation, claiming that all
the parties, including Israel, understand the document as requiring —
prior to, or without, negotiations — dismantling settlements. It offered
no evidence whatsoever for this assertion.

 

All this insistent misrepresentation of reality is not new.
It recalls former Jerusalem bureau chief Serge Schmemann’s remarkable 1998
rewriting of Israeli-Palestinian agreements related to Hebron.

 

Then the Times reporter first erred in claiming
Israel was imposing new “conditions” on the Palestinians, charging
Israel with, in effect, lying about the stipulations of a written agreement.
Later, in a mendacious “correction,” the paper falsely maintained
Israel was injecting “new, specific demands.”

 

It seems, despite the shadow of Jayson Blair and public
unease about the “newspaper of record,” when it comes to reporting on
the Arab-Israeli conflict, political agenda still trumps journalistic propriety
at the New York Times.

Originally appeared in the June 6, 2003
edition of the Jerusalem Post.

Caricature or Bigotry?

The Chicago Tribune ran an offensive and fallacious cartoon by Dick Locher on May 30, 2003 reminiscent of the anti-Jewish stereotypes of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, publisher of the notorious Der Sturmer (see below). Locher twists Israeli leader Ariel Sharon’s motives for peace into one of greed. Sharon is portrayed with a large hooked nose that doesn’t resemble his actual profile. A groveling Bush, dominated by a large Sharon, is paving a trail of money to Arafat as Sharon declares “the path to peace is looking a bit brighter.”

 

While editorial cartoons are meant to satirically summarize — sometimes insensitively — current events, they are expected to be based on fact.

 

* America did not offer Israel financial inducements to accept the “road map.”

 

* Israel has repeatedly sought peace, even at great risk to its citizens, only to have the overtures rejected and/or answered with Palestinian violence.

 

* Forbes magazine (March 17, 2003) claims Arafat is worth at least 300 million dollars. One of his main money sources has been foreign aid meant for the Palestinian people which he has diverted to his own accounts. Yet, the cartoon portrays Sharon and not Arafat as greedy.

 

* The road map is supposed to be negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas — not Arafat.

 

*     *     *

 

Caricature by Dick Locher (Chicago Tribune)

2003

*           *           *

 

 

Caricature for “Money is the God of the Jews,”published by Julius Streicher, of Der Stí¼rmer .  (Der Giftpilz, a children’s book–online German Propaganda Archive, Professor Randall Bytwerk, Calvin College)

1938

“The God of the Jews is Money.  And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes.  He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money.”

*           *           *

 

Don Wycliff, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, responded quickly to reader criticism of the paper’s decision to run Dick Locher’s cartoon “Mideast Gulch” (May 30). In a June 1 piece, Wycliff acknowledged that the cartoon “crossed all lines” and that his “reaction was very much the same” as a reader who viewed the cartoon as “blatantly anti-Semitic, reinforcing the long-held racist image of Jews as avaricious and greedy.”

 

Bruce Dold, editorial page editor, took the view that people misinterpreted Locher’s cartoon. Dold believes that “Locher intended to comment on the influence the U.S. can exert through the foreign aid it provides to Israel. I think that’s all Locher intended.” However, he concedes that the “cartoon carried several other messages that could be seen as drawing on anti-Semitic symbols and stereotypes. It also implied that the U.S. is bribing Israel to support the road map to peace, but there is simply no evidence to support that. On those levels, the cartoon failed.” Most troubling is the paper’s explanation for running Locher’s piece. While Dold was out of town, readers are told, deputy editor John McCormick (with the help of Voice of the People editor Dodie Hofstetter) made the decision in favor of Locher’s cartoon because “the policy issue it depicted — the use of U.S. aid to influence the Israeli government — was one that had often been discussed in editorial board debates.”

 

A question members of the Tribune staff should ask themselves is: Have there been cartoons — virulent or otherwise — related to the large sums of American aid to Western Europe and South Korea? Have there been “editorial board debates” and cartoons about aid to Egypt, which receives close to the same amount of aid as Israel? Moreover, the notion that any connection can be drawn between a debate about aid to Israel (which is obviously a legitimate topic of discussion) and the Nazi-like cartoon is troubling.

 

And one wonders, since Wycliff admits that “money has never been the decisive issue in the Middle East dispute,” why has “the use of U.S. aid to influence the Israeli government…often been discussed in editorial board debates?”

 

Wycliff ends the piece by stating “that this cartoon did indeed give grievous offense to many good people is beyond question.” The paper, evidently abashed at having run the anti-Semitic cartoon, nevertheless stopped short of offering an outright apology.

 

UPDATE:  Other Newspapers Publish Cartoon

 

The cartoon has been published in at least three other newspapers, the Denver Post (June 4), the Orlando Sentinel (June 7), and the Helena Independent Record (June 6). All three papers have since issued statements regretting the decision to run the Locher cartoon.

 

The Denver Post‘s editor, Sue O’Brien, in the June 6 edition of the paper explained that she “deeply regret[s] having published it.” O’Brien noted that the cartoon included “several visual symbols that certainly could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.” Locher’s piece, according to O’Brien, “reflected the double standard Americans too often impose on Israel…[and] made the seriously incorrect factual suggestion that the United States is paying – actually bribing – Israel to participate in the “˜roadmap to peace’ process.”

 

The Helena Independent Record made the following statement about the cartoon in a June 10 editorial:

 

Unfortunately, the depiction of Sharon, complete with a large nose and a Star of David on his suit coat, being swayed by Bush’s money, clearly amounted to an anti-Semitic caricature. Readers were justified in being upset. The IR strives to keep all kinds of ethnic slurs and stereotyping out of its pages, and we regret having fallen short. We apologize for failing to meet our own standards….Any image that smacks of the centuries-old scourge of anti-Semitism lies well beyond that line.

 

The Orlando Sentinel‘s editor, Tim Franklin (June 14) was quoted saying that “the [Locher] cartoon crossed the line by conveying stereotypical images that are clearly offensive to Jews.” Franklin admits the cartoon “should not have been published.”

Globe Stands Alone in Accurate Headlining

Newspaper headlines about the Hamas terrorist bombing in Jerusalem — for which the death tally has now reached 17 — and Israel’s strike against Hamas in Gaza that killed four members of that organization and five bystanders have very often failed to represent events clearly.

 

Rather than identify Palestinians (or Hamas) as the perpetrator of the bus atrocity, many publications omit completely any naming of the killers, preferring anonymous phrasing such as “bus blast kills.” Others fail to identify the Palestinian perpetrator but readily name Israel as taking reprisal action in Gaza against Hamas. Still other headlines blur the two events and combine casualty statistics, suggesting the targeted Hamas members who plan and carry out terrorism are as innocent as the murdered bus victims. Headlines telegraph readers the supposed essentials of an event. Continually omitting reference to the words “Palestinian” or “Hamas” in reference to terrorist attacks obscures the responsibility of the perpetrators.

 

Below is a list of headlines from American, Canadian and British newspapers, many of which failed to state forthrightly the identity of perpetrators of the Jerusalem attack. The Boston Globe was among the few major papers to use direct, clear language.

 

1) Headline omits naming Palestinian as perpetrator of terror attack

 

Daily News (New York), June 12, 2003, Thursday, “Hell On Earth In Holy Land:Bus blast kills 16 in Jerusalem”

 

Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2003 “Bus Blast in Israel Kills 16; Army Retaliates; Violence Endangers Peace Effort”

 

Toronto Star, June 12, 2003 Thursday “Suicide blast kills 16”

 

The Washington Post, June 12, 2003 “Jerusalem Bus Bomb Kills 17 as Strife Rises; Airstrikes in Gaza Kill 9 Palestinians; Bush Plan Is Tested”

 

The Wichita Eagle, June 12, 200 “Suicide bomber kills 16 on Jerusalem bus”

 

2) Headline omits naming Palestinian as perpetrator of terror attack — but names Israel in strike at Hamas

 

Birmingham Post, June 12, 2003, Bus Bomb Outrage, Then Israeli Missiles Kill Nine”

 

The New York Times, June 12, 2003 “Suicide Blast Kills 16 in Jerusalem; Israel Strikes Gaza”

 

The Ottawa Sun, June 12, 2003 “Suicide Bomber Blows Up Bus: Israel Hits Back With Rockets”

 

Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), June 12, 2003 “Bus Bomber Kills 16: Israel Strikes Back With Missiles; 9 Palestinians Die; Bush’s ‘Road Map’ Dealt Another Blow”

 

The Tallahassee Democrat, June 12, 2003 “Attacks convulse Mideast; Israelis retaliate in Gaza after deadly bombing of bus”

 

3) Headline blurs events, combines Israeli losses to Palestinian terror attack and victims of Israel’s strike at Hamas

 

Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2003 “27 die in Jerusalem, Gaza; Bus bombing, gunship strikes put peace plan in jeopardy”

 

The Guardian (London), June 12, 2003 “Day of carnage leaves Middle East in chaos: Israel and Hamas count the dead”

 

Philadelphia Inquirer, June 12, 2003 “Violence Tests Road Map”

 

The Times (London), June 12, 2003 “Middle East peace hopes fade as 26 die in attacks”

 

4)Headline explicitly blames Israel for setback in road map

 

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), June 12, 2003 “Suicide bomber kills 16 on bus; Peace hopes suffer as Israel retaliates after blast in Jerusalem”

 

5) Headline names Palestinian perpetrator of terror attack

 

The Boston Globe, June 12, 2003, “16 killed As Palestinian Blows Up Jerusalem Bus Israeli Raids Follow In Gaza; Nine Die”

The Message at the New York Times – Blame the Victim

The day after the bloody rush hour bombing of bus #14a in downtown Jerusalem, the White House stated that the obstacle to Middle East peace was the terrorist group Hamas.

 

“The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained to reporters on June 12. “The issue is not Israel, the issue is not the Palestinian Authority, the issue is terrorists who are killing in an attempt to stop the [peace] process.”

 

The New York Times, however, had a completely different message for its readers. The “gravest political damage” according to the June 12^th lead editorial was not from the Palestinian terrorists who had killed 17 and injured nearly 100 Israelis in the bloody carnage of the previous day, but from Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, “whose reflexive military responses to terror threatens to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate new prime minister.”

 

Blaming Israel for “undermining” and “damaging the credibility of Mr. Abbas and of the whole Bush peace plan,” the Times editorialist lauded the Palestinian prime minister for “bravely renouncing terror” and called on Israel to allow Abbas to “follow up his words with effective police action.”

 

The front page story of the suicide bombing described the violence as “part of a new cycle of attack and revenge since a meeting in Aqaba…” The headline (“Suicide Blast Kills 16 in Jerusalem; Israel Strikes Gaza”) and the two front page photos (one of a wounded Israeli girl being helped from the Jerusalem bus and the other of an injured Palestinian girl in Gaza city) further fostered the equating of violence by Palestinian terrorists and anti-terrorist actions by the Israeli military.

 

Did the Times editors have amnesia?

 

Only days earlier, the Times had reported that:

 

the militant Muslim groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad both said that for now, they were not willing to stop fighting against Israel despite Mr. Abbas’ call for an end to the “˜armed intifada’…

 

that:

 

…Hamas has never recognized Israel and says it is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

 

and that:

 

…the Israeli military has been on high alert in recent days, with the army saying it has dozens of warnings of possible Palestinian attacks.(Greg Myre, June 5, 2003)

 

Two days later, Times Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet made clear that:

 

Mr. Abbas wants to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with its capital in Jerusalem, while Hamas wants to put an end to Israel. (James Bennet, June 7, 2003)

 

And Greg Myre reported that:

 

A senior Hamas leader, Abdul Aziz Rantissi, said the militant Islamic group would continue to carry out attacks against Israel… (Greg Myre, June 8, 2003)

 

The Times’ Ian Fisher also quoted Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi as saying::

 

Of course all factions are working together to keep up resistance to the occupation. We refuse totally the Aqaba summit. It is a waste of our existence. (Ian Fisher, June 9, 2003)

 

At the same time, the article made clear that Mr. Abbas would not engage in armed confrontation with the terrorists.

 

The Times editorial writer had apparently discounted the evidence presented by his paper’s own news correspondents as insufficient to justify Israel’s defensive actions. Neglected, as well, were the following facts:

 

In the time since the Aqaba summit in which Mr. Abbas was refusing to forcefully confront Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, Israeli security officials thwarted 10 would-be suicide bombers and had warnings of dozens more. According to Israeli officials, the bus attack, executed by members of a Hebron Hamas cell who had unfortunately eluded Israeli forces, was of a kind requiring considerable time to plan and implement and could not have been a direct response to Israel’s anti-terrorist attack of the previous day.

 

Implicated by Israeli officials in directly planning, encouraging, inciting and carrying out terrorist attacks is none other than Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi, one of the targets of Israel’s anti-terrorism actions on June 10, 2003.

 

The New York Times editorial has apparently chosen now to ignore all of this in the interest of fashioning its own message – blame the victims of terrorism, blame Israel and blame Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Newspaper Headlines Omit Terror Perpetrators

Newspaper headlines about the Hamas terrorist bombing in Jerusalem — for which the death tally has now reached 17 — and Israel’s strike against Hamas in Gaza that killed four members of that organization and five bystanders have very often failed to represent events clearly.

 

Rather than identify Palestinians (or Hamas) as the perpetrator of the bus atrocity, many publications omit completely any naming of the killers, preferring anonymous phrasing such as “bus blast kills.” Others fail to identify the Palestinian perpetrator but readily name Israel as taking reprisal action in Gaza against Hamas. Still other headlines blur the two events and combine casualty statistics, suggesting the targeted Hamas members who plan and carry out terrorism are as innocent as the murdered bus victims. Headlines telegraph readers the supposed essentials of an event. Continually omitting reference to the words “Palestinian” or “Hamas” in reference to terrorist attacks obscures the responsibility of the perpetrators.

 

Below is a list of headlines from American, Canadian and British newspapers, many of which failed to state forthrightly the identity of perpetrators of the Jerusalem attack. The Boston Globe was among the few major papers to use direct, clear language.

 

1) Headline omits naming Palestinian as perpetrator of terror attack

 

Daily News (New York), June 12, 2003, Thursday, “Hell On Earth In Holy Land:Bus blast kills 16 in Jerusalem”

 

Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2003 “Bus Blast in Israel Kills 16; Army Retaliates; Violence Endangers Peace Effort”

 

Toronto Star, June 12, 2003 Thursday “Suicide blast kills 16”

 

The Washington Post, June 12, 2003 “Jerusalem Bus Bomb Kills 17 as Strife Rises; Airstrikes in Gaza Kill 9 Palestinians; Bush Plan Is Tested”

 

The Wichita Eagle, June 12, 200 “Suicide bomber kills 16 on Jerusalem bus”

 

2) Headline omits naming Palestinian as perpetrator of terror attack — but names Israel in strike at Hamas

 

Birmingham Post, June 12, 2003, Bus Bomb Outrage, Then Israeli Missiles Kill Nine”

 

The New York Times, June 12, 2003 “Suicide Blast Kills 16 in Jerusalem; Israel Strikes Gaza”

 

The Ottawa Sun, June 12, 2003 “Suicide Bomber Blows Up Bus: Israel Hits Back With Rockets”

 

Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), June 12, 2003 “Bus Bomber Kills 16: Israel Strikes Back With Missiles; 9 Palestinians Die; Bush’s ‘Road Map’ Dealt Another Blow”

 

The Tallahassee Democrat, June 12, 2003 “Attacks convulse Mideast; Israelis retaliate in Gaza after deadly bombing of bus”

 

3) Headline blurs events, combines Israeli losses to Palestinian terror attack and victims of Israel’s strike at Hamas

 

Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2003 “27 die in Jerusalem, Gaza; Bus bombing, gunship strikes put peace plan in jeopardy”

 

The Guardian (London), June 12, 2003 “Day of carnage leaves Middle East in chaos: Israel and Hamas count the dead”

 

Philadelphia Inquirer, June 12, 2003 “Violence Tests Road Map”

 

The Times (London), June 12, 2003 “Middle East peace hopes fade as 26 die in attacks”

 

4)Headline explicitly blames Israel for setback in road map

 

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), June 12, 2003 “Suicide bomber kills 16 on bus; Peace hopes suffer as Israel retaliates after blast in Jerusalem”

 

5) Headline names Palestinian perpetrator of terror attack

 

The Boston Globe, June 12, 2003, “16 killed As Palestinian Blows Up Jerusalem Bus Israeli Raids Follow In Gaza; Nine Die”

NPR’s Terror Problem published in National Review Online

Click here for a link to NPR’s Terror Problem, a CAMERA article published in National Review Online.<?I>