On July 11, the Washington Post editorial editor treated its readers to an opinion column, "Aggression Under False Pretenses," by Hamas leader and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Readers would not know Hamas is a terrorist organization responsible for the murders of hundreds of Israelis and others, or that Haniyeh a leader or even a member of a terrorist entity.
The New York Times seems to be slipping back into a pattern of coverage skewed toward Palestinian perspectives in its headlines, human interest stories and characterizations of terrorist actions and counter-actions.
CAMERA staff elicited a correction from the Guardian on an opinion piece by Patrick Seale, who erroneously claimed that Qassam rockets launched from Gaza had not caused any fatalities.
The BBC is not only overtly partisan in its Web site article choices, it misleads readers with a false, propagandistic version of the situation. A recent article entitled "Palestinians back prisoner release call" fails to inform readers that the protagonist interviewed was himself imprisoned for attempting to kidnap an Israeli soldier and that his wife had been imprisoned for planning a suicide bombing.
CAMERA has repeatedly faulted the New York Times for whitewashing and excusing Palestinian terrorism and repeating terroristsí¢â‚¬™ claims at face value. Faced with a newly published volume ("Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad," by Matthew Levitt, Yale University Press, 2006) that exposes the Hamas organizationí¢â‚¬™s single-minded goal of jihad against Israel, the Times review of the book once more rationalizes the terrorist nature of the organization.
Much of the media is misreporting the substance of the referendum proposed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the so-called Prisoners' Document presented in the referendum. Reports claiming the document is a "peace plan" or that it accepts a two-state solution recognizing Israel are selling an idea of Hamas moderation that has little, if any, basis. While such overenthusiastic extrapolation might be acceptable in an opinion or analysis piece, news stories should stick to reporting the facts.
A new analysis by CAMERA shows National Public Radio reporters and commentators continue to employ a double standard when reporting on terrorists and terror attacks in Israel versus terror attacks perpetrated elsewhere. When a bombing occurs that targets civilians in London, Istanbul, Sinai or Madrid, the perpetrators are routinely described as terrorists by NPR. However, the same is not true when an attack occurs in Israel and the perpetrators are Palestinians.
When it comes to Arab-Israeli affairs, is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter a) uninformed, b) misinformed, or c) blinded by an anti-Israel animus? His USA Today Op-Ed, "Israel's new plan: A land grab" (May 16 print edition) makes a strong case for "all of the above."
On May 15, in the wake of the funerals of two more victims of the April 17th Palestinian terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, the New York Times published a powerful and moving human interest story about terror victim Lior Anidzar. CAMERA criticized the New York Times on May 2nd for its disproportionate emphasis on human interest stories depicting Palestinian suffering with little focus on the human dimension of terrrorism's impact on Israeli lives. With this moving and evocative article, the newspaper has helped offset the imbalance.
On May 2nd, 2006, the New York Times published a detailed, emotive human interest story on a Palestinian family whose northern Gaza house was hit by an Israeli artillery shell fired in response to Kassam rockets launched from the area. While Israelis have been terrorized by daily Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks, Israeli suffering is generally presented only by dry facts and figures.The Times puts a human face primarily on Palestinian suffering. The result? Skewed emphasis on the Palestinian toll in the conflict.
