WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

January 13, 2003


I've tried to refrain lately from pointing out media bias. It just seems that the bias is so pervasive, and the complaining so futile, that it's not wroth the effort. But this example is too egregious to pass up on.

JERUSALEM, Jan. 12 — Nine Palestinians and two Israelis were killed today in fighting across Israel and the occupied territories, as the conflict here became entangled in Israeli electoral politics.
Nine Palestinians and two Israelis were NOT killed in fighting today. Nine Palestinians and one Israeli were. I guess the juxtaposition of the amount of Palestinians killed, which is higher, with the amount of Israelis killed is intended to garner sympathy for the Palestinians, even though the deaths are not related, and are the aggregate of various disparate incidents. However, I fail to understand how if, in the course of fighting, one side suffers greater casualties, that side is supposed to receive more sympathy. It doesn't give them any legitimacy. It just means that they're bad fighters.
Anyway, I mentioned above that, contrary to the Times' report of nine Palestinian and two Israelis killed in fighting, only one Israeli was actually killed in fighting. The other Israeli was murdered in cold blood by two Palestinian terrorist-murderers who infiltrated the community in which that Israeli lived and started shooting randomly at passing cars. What gallant bravery in the battlefiled. This Israeli father was not "killed in fighting". He was murdered in cold blood because of his religion and because of his nationality. To claim that he was killed in fighting, which implies some kind of reciprocal behavior is an attempt to minimize the pure evil motives of his killers. Comparing him to the terrorist-murderers who were killed in that same incident demeans the value of his life.

The events came a day after the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, asked Palestinians to refrain from attacking Israeli civilians.
Actually, Yasser Arafat asked Palestinians to refrain from attacking Israeli civilians until after the Israeli elections. Arafat has no problem with his fellow Palestinians murdering innocent Israeli civilians. He actually supports and encourages such behavior. I fail to comprehend why the Times feels the need to whitewash Arafat's statements and beliefs. The Times supposedly supports a peace settlement involving some sort of two-state solution in Israel. It is abundantly clear that Arafat is not, how should I put it, peace-oriented. So it is not clear why the Times would want him in the picture, and why they're trying to portray him as "peace-oriented" in order to keep him involved.

Cross posted at BIUblog