"It should be no surprise that the ferment in the Arab world has touched the Palestinians, whose promised two-state solution is no closer than ever. On Sunday, the anniversary of Israel’s creation, thousands marching from Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank breached Israel’s borders and confronted Israeli troops. More than a dozen people were killed; scores were injured."
"More than a dozen people were killed"? What is the source of their numbers? On Israel's border with Syria it is known that at least one, but no more than two persons died when thousands, bussed to the border by Assad, broke down the fence and entered Israel. The fact that more didn't die is evidence of the restraint displayed by the Israeli army when confronting this throng of persons crossing into Israel.
On the Lebanese border my sources tell me that up to four persons died when trying to enter Israel, but most if not all of these persons were shot by the Lebanese army while attempting to control the rioting. Anyone reading this New York Times editorial would be led to believe that Israel was responsible for all of the deaths. This was not the case.
So how did the editorial board of The New York Times determine that "More than a dozen people were killed"? Perhaps The New York Times is basing its account upon a report from the Palestinian Ma'an News Agency (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=387823); however, Ma'an is known for prejudicial reporting.
Further along in the editorial, The New York Times writes:
"President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority wants a deal but seemed to give up after Mr. Obama couldn’t deliver a promised settlement freeze."
Abbas wants a deal? What kind of a deal? As I noted in my prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/mahmoud-abbass-long-overdue-palestinian_16.html), Abbas is content to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, but this does not involve recognition of Israel. Moreover, his recent pact with Hamas belies any intention to reach a peace agreement with Israel.
The New York Times owes its readers explanations.
[I have sent an e-mail to Andrew Rosenthal and Arthur Brisbane of The New York Times, inquiring whether this editorial violates this newspaper's standards of ethical journalism. Let's see if either of these gentlemen replies.]
According to one of the news briefs from IMRA...
ReplyDeleteJS> So how did the editorial board of The New York Times determine that "More than a dozen people were killed"
See: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=52455
Israel deliberately decided not to call attention to the fact that most of those people shot on or near the Lebanese border were shot by members of the Lebanese army, because they didn't want the Lebanese Army to refrain from interfering with them the next time.
So what are you blaming the New York Times for? Israel did not correct the story. Israel did not want to correct the story.