“Abbas: Specific US assurances on borders needed” reminds us of the old Pravda.
On and on, falsely accusing Israel, twisting words, suggestive words, biased words.
Let’s ask other readers to find all examples and only then check them against our list.
We’ll bring the 28 fabrication in the order that they appear. Did you find others?
- no progress has been reported – By the Palestinians, that is. Israel has (again) suggested and implemented “confidence building measures” to no avail to the Palestinian leadership – or AP. This sentence hides that it’s not Israel that’s stalling.
- the Palestinians are reluctant – The euphemism of the month. They have no interest in peace.
- Talks ended in late 2008 – No, that would have been at the outbreak of the Second Gaza War; but it was rather: when Olmert had to step down, a couple of months later.
- without agreement – all the Israeli concessions, no matter how unreasonable were met with a firm Nyet. Again, Israel compromised, Palestinians demanded, more and more. And AP hides which was the party that was not giving in.
- on an Israeli proposal for a Palestinian state that would comprise Gaza, about 95 percent of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, with exchanges of land to make up the difference and a corridor through Israel linking the two territories. Israel also agreed to take in some refugees, but not the millions Palestinians count. Abbas turned it down because he was not willing to compromise over Jerusalem. Ha, ha. [Since the JOKE has not been clear to all, here’s an explanation. Arafat was not a George Washington or Ben Gurion; he was not a statesman working to create a state. He was an unrepented mass-murdering terrorist who wanted to kill as many people as possible to be a despot over “his” people. There is no other way to explain his bank accounts of millions while not doing a thing for modal Palestinians. The only and real reason for turning down the offer was that he wanted Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Eilat. How can anyone seriously believe that he wanted peace or less than all of Palestine?]
- Both sides claim a key holy site in the Old City. Both claim the money, but one is a bank robber holding a pistol while the other is the director of the bank. This equivalence is only obfuscating. Olmert was offering the Temple Mount, where the Muslim Shrines are built over the ruins of the two Jewish Temples. It was not enough.
- Netanyahu has agreed to the principle of a Palestinian state but – Left out is that that is a great Israeli concession.
- the Islamic militant group Hamas overran Gaza three years ago. – Not true. Hamas was elected in democratic elections. It did kick out the Fatah minority, but that’s not overrunning.
- He was forced to cancel local elections set for this month because of the turmoil. – Because he could not win them, you mean.
- His weakness limits his ability to compromise in peace negotiations. – Oh dear, oh dear – he’s so weak. We just googled “Abbas threatens” and got 33,800 hits!
- Likewise, – Unfounded equivalence all over again.
- Netanyahu heads a hard-line ruling coalition – For the first time the Prime-Minister is not called a hard-liner by AP, but his government is. If Ehud Barak were a US politician he would be called part of the loony left. They have voted for a Palestinian State and release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners, of whom 100 killed over 600 Israelis. That’s hard-line?
- that would not endorse the concessions made by the previous government. – These concession were not made by any government. Rather, the then Prime-Minister went into a private free fall and tried anything to get into the books of history with a success in “the peace process” (and not a corruption scandal) but also that was not good enough.
- The potential for violence was illustrated again where two Palestinian militants were killed and seven wounded by Israeli gunfire – From this it seems that Israel was violent – again.
- soldiers fired at suspected militants approaching the border fence with Israel. – Oh, they stopped a terrorist infiltration – that is not being violent – that is self-defense – of civilians. But the Palestinian aggression is portrayed as Israeli militancy, and when we continue to read, as a mutual clash.
- Israel’s punishing three-week offensive in Gaza – Clever, very clever. “Punishing” has two meanings, so the reporter can always claim that s/he just meant “severely.”
- Palestinian militants – Let’s have tea with them, they sound so idealistic.
- That war continued to reverberate – In the daily reports by AP, that is.
- The Israeli military pledging to take greater precautions to avoid civilian casualties. – No, rather “to further minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian property in the future,” “[w]hile the majority of the issues addressed in the new procedures were already embedded in various operational orders and guidelines in existence prior to the Operation.”
- the offensive was a proportionate response; 1,400 Gazans were killed in the war, including hundreds of civilians. Thirteen Israelis were killed. – Richard Goldstone himself has explained that “proportionate” means: not more collateral damage than strictly necessary – not: causing no more casualties than the other party. In the previous AP report there were a 1000 civilians killed, here it went down to hundreds. But we know that in the next report it will be 1000 again. That’s how AP brainwashes.
- U.N. investigators wrote last year that they found evidence that – No, Goldstone & co had cataloged accusations, not findings, and absolute no proofs.
- both sides committed war crimes. – Equivalence hides that one was an army with conscripts who could have bombed the whole place not risking their lives, but instead started a ground infiltration, versus a terrorist organization that not only didn’t build bunkers for civilians but also fought from in between the population and called upon citizens to get killed (“martyred”) by the more the merrier.
- Hamas was cited for indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli civilians, while Israel was accused of using disproportionate force and intentionally harming civilians. – The first is a fact beyond doubt, the second is just an accusation. False equivalence.
- Both sides rejected the charges. – Equivalence all over again. What’s the value of denying facts?
- Africa’s ambassador returned to Israel after he was withdrawn in protest over a raid – It was not a raid – I write & explained to AP on a daily basis for 6 weeks.
- [violence] by Israeli navy commandos – it was self-defense against murderous terrorists that hoped to die a martyr’s death.
- nine activists were killed. – Nine terrorists, that is.
- The raid provoked harsh international criticism. – Liars. The G-8 completely supported Israel and AP refuses to write about that, because it needs to write that everyone hates Israel.
All 28 against Israel! What a surprise.
Four writers have contributed to this great work of fiction.
And added to AP’s reputation.