Your “Israel defense minister opposes soldiers’ grilling” disappoints on three counts.
A. Your rendering of Barak’s stand against soldiers having to testify is unintelligible.
We will try to explain here what we think Barak must have said or meant.
If it doesn’t make sense, AP should ask sharp questions of formulate better.
Why does Israel not agree to any panel cross-examining its soldiers?
Inside the Army the behavior of individual soldiers and the commanders is evaluated.
If soldiers failed, the army will take measures: prosecution, demotion, procedural changes.
In Israeli politics only the political echelon carries responsibility for any action by the Army. This is a system found in many democracies, called ministerial responsibility.
B. Barak’s three-hour testimony you condense to two paragraphs, numbers 14 and 15 of the 16. This is as good as not quoting him at all.
You leave out that not intercepting the ships would have been completely irresponsible, and that since the activist refused inspection by anyone, this was the only option left.
C. May we suggest that you ban from your reports the following expression except for when you are in great need of writing some anti-Israel bias:
- raid; instead: interception (this report indoctrinates with it a record four times)
- both [parties]; instead: don’t hide Arab aggression by equalizing it with violence from Israeli self-defense
- international outcry; instead: media smear campaign, but informed world leaders (G-8) backed Israel
We should be able to recognize AP reporting by its quality, not by its bias.