Media Distorts Truth About Israel’s Campaign of Brutality Against Gaza

Posted on July 12, 2014 by abby

Today Israel carried out aerial strikes in Gaza targeting a mosque it claims was hosting rockets, a disabled care center and a geriatric urgent care hospital, where international volunteers have since rushed to shield patients.

In the deadliest strike yet, the city’s police headquarters and the home of Gaza’s police chief was bombed, killing 18 members of his family.

Israel has used white phosphorus on Palestinians before, and now it’s being reported by many officials that banned DIME weapons are being used against civilians in Gaza, a controversial munition that emits superheated micro-shrapnel.

According to Gaza’s Undersecretary of Health, “Medical teams have found wounds on the bodies of those killed and injured that are caused by the banned DIME weapons.” He added, “Gaza hospitals are bursting at the seams with dead and wounded. Children and women make up around 62 percent of those injured in the attacks.”

These horrors are just the latest examples of the death and destruction being wreaked amidst Israel’s five day bombing campaign dubbed ‘Operation Protective Edge’.

Since the beginning of the offensive, at least 174 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,090 injured, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Thousands of homes have been destroyed. A handful of Israelis have been injured but none have died from a Hamas launched rocket.

Yet despite the disproportionality of the brutality, the establishment media continues to distort the truth by painting Hamas as the sole aggressor.

From FOX‘s ‘Gaza Rockets Aimed at Israel: What Would you Do with Just 15 Seconds?’ to liberal alt-news site VOX‘s ‘The Tragedy Never Ends, Palestinian Rockets Force Israeli Peace Conference to Evacuate’ to even Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization that is supposed to be unbiased in its criticism of atrocities, which leads with ‘Indiscriminate Palestinian Rocket Attacks’.

But perhaps most disturbing is the initial headline crafted by The New York Times describing an Israeli missile bombing a cafe in Gaza packed with Palestinians watching the World Cup:

Missile at Beachside Gaza Cafe Finds Patrons Poised for World Cup http://t.co/t1N3tag2rf

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 10, 2014

While misleading headlines framing the violence as one-sided is dangerous enough, nothing compares to the blatant misdirection displayed by ABC’s Dianne Sawyer, who portrayed Palestinians in Gaza City as Israelis.

ABC Distorts Truth to Fit Pro-Israel Bias

As journalist Rania Khalek explains in an article dissecting the egregious error:

“Sawyers bald misreporting reflects either a deliberate lie by ABC news or willful ignorance so severe that Palestinian death and misery is invisible even when it’s staring ABC producers right in the face.”

The Western media routinely devalues Palestinian lives, and the dead bodies that stack up every time Israel goes on the offense remain an inconvenient truth for its narrative.

Another common misconception thanks to the media’s false depiction of Palestine is that Hamas is a rogue terrorist group, when in reality it is the democratically elected leadership of Gaza. When the IDF claims it only targets Hamas, it could mean any building affiliated with the government or social services provided to Palestinians.

As Noam Chomsky said, this isn’t war, it’s murder:

“When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing.”

According to the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is acting ‘responsible’ in his defense of the rockets. Yet the collective punishment of over a million people living in an open-air prison is far from such.

I made a statement addressing Israel’s ‘irresponsible’ barbarism:

Why Doesn’t the Media Care About Dead Palestinians?

Since posting this video, I have been overwhelmed at the feedback and support from thousands of Palestinians around the world. It has been featured on one of Turkey’s most popular news websites En Son Haber, Indonesian newspaper Liputan, translated in French on DailyMotion, posted on popular Arabic websites Al Arabiya, Alwatan Voice and has gone viral on Palestinian TV station Raya FM.

I strongly denounce deadly force on both sides, but it’s important to not frame this as a cycle of violence. One is the colonizer oppressor, the other the colonized oppressed. As IDF General’s son Miko Peled said, Palestinians living in occupied territories have two choices: to completely surrender, or resist – and resistance is what we’re seeing now.

Don’t miss Max Blumenthal talking about how the Israeli government hid information on the three murdered teens’ in order to incite violence, racial tension and justify a military rampage.

Why Gaza is Burning: What the Corporate Media Isn’t Telling You

IDF General’s son Miko Peled talks about the latest siege on Gaza and why Israel should decolonize Palestine if it wants to end the rockets.

IDF General’s Son: If Israel Doesn’t Like Rockets, Decolonize Palestine

Earlier this year, Secretary of State John Kerry came under fire for saying that Israel could turn into an apartheid state if reforms aren’t made. I outline five reason why it already is one.

5 Reasons Why Israel is an Apartheid State

When Israel launched its 2012 military offensive dubbed ‘Operation Pillar of Defense’, the IDF knowingly bombed a journalist tower in Gaza that housed RT among other foreign news networks. I responded to the war crime on Breaking the Set.

Many Americans think the clock starts with Hamas rockets every time Israel carries out a military operation, without realizing the roots of the conflict and history of the occupation. Here’s a brief breakdown.

Written by Abby Martin @abbymartin

Photo by flickr user Jordi Bernabeu Farrus

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel Draw the Line

Posted on April 21, 2014 by Ronnie Barkan

thursdaydemo Prime Minister David Cameron got more than he expected at the Israeli Knesset in his recent visit, receiving a cold shoulder from ultra-Orthodox and Palestinian legislators who share common interests, being the state’s most oppressed communities. Cameron’s visit to the Knesset took place on the same day that two controversial laws, the Conscription Law and the Governability Law, were finally approved following a prolonged legislative battle. As Prime Minister Netanyahu welcomed the guest of honour the ultra-Orthodox parliamentarians left the plenary session in protest while their colleagues, Palestinian Members of the Knesset, refused to attend the event altogether. This was the culmination point of several months of heated protest over the Conscription Law which brought to the surface contradictions between Zionism and Judaism.

Hundreds of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim) of all denominations took to the streets of Jerusalem to oppose the draft law several days before its legislation. In a mass prayer, the worshippers-protesters declared their faithfulness to Torah study rather than to the military. United under the banner declaring that “the State of Israel is fighting against the Kingdom of Heaven” they held signs stating that military draft is a spiritual suicide. The event was not merely an opposition to the law but nothing short of a battle cry against the very legitimacy of a state that encroaches upon their spiritual autonomy and poses a danger to their religious liberty.

Under the slogan “Equality in the Burden” both religious-Zionist Naftali Bennett and secular-Zionist Yair Lapid were elected and became the two largest coalition partners of a Haredi-free government. The campaign called for the forced conscription of the ultra-Orthodox and garnered wide support from the Israeli public. Unlike the purist Edah HaHaredit group which prohibits its members from partaking in, voting and receiving funds from the Zionist state, the Haredi rabbinical councils which called for the mass protest have their elected representatives at the Knesset. They all walked out of the plenum stating that Netanyahu is an enemy to their religion, yet this did not stop the Prime Minister from addressing Cameron in his welcoming speech by saying “David, welcome to the City of David and to the Jewish Knesset”.

The law enforces an incrementally growing annual quota of ultra-Orthodox students to be drafted, reaching 5,200 by 2017. Religious schools that would send their students to the military will receive financial incentives but in case the goal is not met, a draft for all the ultra-Orthodox would be imposed and financial sanctions implemented. The ultra-Orthodox argue that sanctioning and criminalizing students of the Torah proves that the State of Israel cannot possibly be regarded as being Jewish. The Law’s initiators, Lapid and Bennett, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu, were subsequently depicted in an animated film as they physically abuse a Haredi Jew and place him behind bars.

People of the book, not people of the rifle

The forced conscription of the ultra-Orthodox into an army that is foreign to their culture is deemed by the Haredim as a Zionist attempt to destroy their millennia-old tradition of Jewish learning. The draft law has therefore achieved the rare feat of uniting all non-Zionist religious streams of the Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Hassidic and Lithuanian communities who are currently working together in an emergency action committee.

ZionismIsrael Following the massive Jerusalem demonstration, an immense protest of over 150,000 people took place in the United States, which united all major ultra-Orthodox Jewish denominations. Yet, the law achieved more than simply uniting the Haredi groups but has also allowed for the more radical voices, like the Mahara Satmar Rabbi, to gain dominance. While the initial call for protest referenced the word “Israel,” the Satmar Rabbi conditioned his support on omitting it and managed to convince all other Rabbis to re-sign an amended declaration that will not give an ounce of legitimacy to the Zionist state.

While the religious Zionists see serving in the IDF as a holy obligation, the ultra-Orthodox believe that living according to the Torah and serving God is the ultimate goal of Jewish life. Recent days have displayed a clear divide between the latter and the religious Zionists as the Haredi paper Hamodia referred to religious Zionists in terms unused before, such as “collaborators with Satan,” “deeply messianic” and “worshippers of the state.”

Religious nationalism, a contradiction in terms

Appalled by the statement of the revered Haredi rabbinical councils, claiming that the State of Israel is an enemy to the religion of Israel, Rabbi Haim Druckman, spiritual leader of Bennett’s nationalist Jewish Home party, instructed his students not to attend the massive gathering. For the ultra-Orthodox, such a rabbi objecting to a gathering for prayer exposes the inherent flaw in religious Zionism whereby, to put it bluntly, the state is worshipped rather than the Almighty.

In response, an op-ed in the Haredi newspaper Yated Ne’eman took the harsh and unusual step of publishing Rabbi Druckman’s name while omitting the title “Rabbi”. Ultra-Orthodox Knesset member Aryeh Deri referred to Jewish Home member Ayelet Shaked, chairwoman of the draft law committee, as a “traitor of Judaism,” “the Jewish Home and Ayelet Shaked did not [only] betray the Haredim, they have betrayed the Torah.”

This unholy union of Zionism and religion is what mainstream Israeli society perceives as the Jewish identity. Yet, the ultra-Orthodox perspective is that Zionism is nothing short of an aberration of Judaism, insisting that Zionism goes against Judaism while claiming to speak on its behalf. The late Prof. Leibowitz, an Orthodox scholar, philosopher and a proponent of separation between state and religion, explained that: “Religious nationalism is to religion what National Socialism is to socialism. National Socialism is not socialism but its opposite and likewise religious nationalism is not religion but its opposite.”

Boycotting the state, saving Judaism

Opposition to Zionism is not new to the ultra-Orthodox. From its very first days, the Zionist movement was strongly condemned by almost all traditional Rabbis in Palestine and throughout the world, who prohibited any Jew from embracing Zionism. As a result, Zionist ideology took hold almost exclusively among secular Jews, i.e. those of a Jewish ethnicity rather than religion.

While talks were underway concerning the future of Jerusalem, Rabbi Dushinsky, the leader of the 60,000 people strong Haredi community in the city, expressed his definite opposition to the Zionist movement and its attempt to expropriate the holy city of Jerusalem. He claimed that religious Jews have not the slightest intention of subjugating the local Arab population. Even earlier, in the years following the Balfour Declaration, Dr. Jacob Israel de Haan who acted on behalf of Rabbi Sonnenfeld, saw the Arabs as natural allies against the Zionist project and met Arab leaders accompanied by the Rabbi, in order to protect their religious autonomy under Arab rule rather than accepting an alien Zionist governance.

Merely a day before embarking for Britain to address the British government, with a delegation expressing its staunch opposition to the Balfour Declaration, de Haan was assassinated outside the Sha’are Zedek synagogue where he attended the afternoon prayer. The assassins confessed to receiving orders from the top Zionist leadership at the time, including Yitzhak Ben-Tzvi who later became the second president of the State of Israel. It is speculated that David Ben-Gurion was also involved in the decisionmaking. According to Avraham Tehomi, one of the assassins, de Haan was marked for execution due to his meeting with King Hussein and Emir Abdullah. In January 1924, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported: “The Hejas King stated that all of the Arab countries are prepared to receive the Jews on terms of equality, but he loathes political Zionism.” A signed royal letter to the same effect is also believed to have been given to de Haan and later stolen by the culprits. Following the murder, it was the Zionist Jewish Agency which in turn limited Jewish immigration into Palestine by choosing to provide ‘certificates’ only for Zionist Jews, even during the Holocaust.

While most secular Israelis detest the Haredim, rare stems of solidarity have recently appeared from the almost negligible number of progressive Israelis. The group Democracy or Rebellion claims that a state that denies civil equality and minority rights has no democratic virtue. In its activities it also reaches out to the ultra-Orthodox community and had posted its message of solidarity on the walls of Me’ah She’arim in Jerusalem as well as demonstrating their support in Tel-Aviv.

A whole new discourse is now emerging within the Haredi community. Some call for a political re-alignment with progressive parties and even with elements on the radical left. Others call to boycott the settlements and their produce, while a growing number of rabbis call on Jews abroad to boycott and divest from Israel at large. One Hassidic group went as far as making plans to migrate en masse to the US, seeking political refuge there with the assistance of American senators.

Neither Jewish nor democratic

During Cameron’s visit at the Knesset, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech focused on four points. He declared that the boycott is racist, that Jews have religious-nationalist rights to the land and that indigenous Palestinians hardly existed before the Zionist colonization of the land. Aside of the fact that these claims are patently false, a more rational and humane approach would be to propose an end to the criminal policies leading to boycotts, insisting on equality between Jews and non-Jews and acknowledging the rights of all indigenous people.

Finally, Netanyahu argued that the Balfour Declaration validates Zionist exclusive rights over the land and that this is the will of Jews worldwide. The declaration states, however, that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and the political assassination of de Haan by the Zionists can hardly be regarded as a form of agreement between Jews and Zionists. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the British Prime Minister to correct his colleague and explain that the Balfour Declaration, as unfair as it is, has never recognized the right to dispossess, expel or subjugate.

The so-called “Jewish and democratic” state is neither Jewish nor democratic. Religiously speaking, Zionism is a secular movement that went as far as dehumanizing and mocking the religious Jews of Europe. Israel’s majority is secular rather than religious, while it can hardly be argued that the state’s oppressive policies are in agreement with Jewish values. As religion has been “nationalized”, hardships also exist for those practicing Jews who choose a different path from the state sanctioned form of Judaism.

Ethnically, the majority of world Jewry prefers to live abroad rather than in Israel. At the same time, Israeli figures show that ethnic Jews are no longer a majority between the river and the sea, while not even counting the many Palestinians living in exile.

Paramount to the Zionist project in Palestine is the claim that the land is exclusively Jewish and that all others, even its indigenous people, are alien and unwanted. It is therefore no coincidence that Israel refuses to have a constitution or to acknowledge an Israeli nationality since this would mean, at least on paper, that its citizens are to be treated as equals. Instead, the privileged group is defined as having a “Jewish” nationality while the others may be “Arab,” “Druze” or “Circassian,” none of which are nationalities. On this basis, discrimination has been codified into law.

The Israeli regime can therefore best be characterized as an ethnocracy which practices the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international law. Israel is only “Jewish” in the ethnic-supremacist sense, in the same way that South Africa was white. Consequently, the demand to recognize its Jewish character is just as questionable as legitimizing white supremacy in South Africa at the time.

After many decades, new bonds between anti-Zionists – ultra-Orthodox, Palestinians, and progressives – are now being forged. While dispelling the myth of Zionism, a new path is being paved in the Holy Land.

Let us walk that path.

By Ronnie Barkan and Joshua Tartakovsky, photo by Tamar Aviyah
Earlier versions of this article appeared on AlterNet and Tikkun Daily

***

Ronnie Barkan is an Israeli human rights activist, conscientious objector and co-founder of Boycott from Within, a group of Israeli citizens and residents that supports the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).
Follow at: @ronnie_barkan

Joshua Tartakovsky comes from an ultra-Orthodox family in Jerusalem, went to a Zionist-Haredi army unit and is a graduate of Brown University and the LSE. He is an independent researcher and filmmaker.

All the Unfit News

Posted on October 20, 2013 by abby

On 15 October 2013, the New York Times featured an op-ed piece from the Israeli Minister of Intelligence entitled ‘How Palestinian Hate Prevents Peace.’ Publishing such disinformation harms the New York Times’ readership, since the Intelligence Minster deliberately omits historical context and social realities from his commentary.

Rudimentary knowledge of recent history shreds the Intelligence Minister’s pablum. To begin with, Zionism and Judaism are completely different. Zionism is a fabricated ideology of aggression, which was created in the late 1800s, whose implementation colonizes much of the Eastern Mediterranean. Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion of peace.

With this fresh breath of history, one is now able to properly assess the following assertions from the Israeli Intelligence Minister:

“The Palestinian Authority’s television and radio stations, public schools, summer camps, children’s magazines and Web sites are being used to drive home four core messages. First, that the existence of a Jewish state (regardless of its borders) is illegitimate because there is no Jewish people and no Jewish history in this piece of land. Second, that Jews and Zionists are horrible creatures that corrupt those in their vicinity. Third, that Palestinians must continue to struggle until the inevitable replacement of Israel by an Arab-Palestinian state. And fourth, that all forms of resistance are honorable and valid, even if some forms of violence are not always expedient.”

When spreading the above decontextualized inaccuracies, the Intelligence Minister has resorted to a revolting trick: deliberately conflating Judaism and Zionism in order to garner support from U.S. readership. In reality, Palestinian grievances are aimed specifically against Zionist oppressors, not against Judaism, Jews, or any specific religion. There is nothing anti-Semitic about self-determination or about wanting to live free from military occupation. Calling criticism of Israel “anti-Semitic” demeans Jews everywhere and dilutes shared histories worldwide.

The Minister also fails to mention that it is the obligation of the occupying power, Israel, to care for the women, men and children under military occupation. This includes refraining from forcibly transferring the people it occupies and refraining from collectively punishing those under its control. Yet Israel does both on a daily basis, often through ceaseless colonialism. Israel’s other violations of international law are not featured in the Minister’s New York Times opinion piece.

The Israeli Intelligence Minister takes issue with Mahmoud Abbas attending a presentation of an Egyptian poet and various other acts of “incitement” against the “Jewish state and the Jewish people.” Again, Palestinian grievances have nothing to do with Judaism. This grand misdirection distracts from the core issue: Palestinians are fighting an anti-colonial struggle against undemocratic, racist ethno-religious ideology.

The Minister alleges Palestinian media reminds “viewers that Palestine extends ‘from Eilat to Rosh Hanikra’ — that is, not just the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the entire land of Israel.” The Minister deliberately omits his support for colonizing “Judea and Samaria,” otherwise known as the West Bank. Fetid hypocrisy at its finest.

The Minister cites two gestures of Israeli goodwill, which he defines as “a courageous attempt to build trust and improve the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations”: a) Israel’s “anguished decision on July 28 to release over 100 convicted terrorists” b) efforts to help the Palestinian economy.

These “terrorists” were convicted in the court of Zionist colonialism, which detains indefinitely, punishes arbitrarily, and prioritizes ethno-religious supremacy for colonial purposes. This is hardly a fair arbiter, Minister. As you know, the word “terrorist” is often used by those in power against those who resist imperial agendas.

By “Israeli efforts to help the Palestinian economy,” one may presume the Intelligence Minister is referring to this recent U.S. plan, a Band-Aid on gaping colonial sores. In other news, ending military occupation and settler colonialism, and allowing for commercial self-determination has a chance to positively affect the Palestinian economy over the long-term. The Minister has removed this option from the table.

He chimes in reminding us, “Palestinian leaders must now reciprocate by immediately and fully halting their encouragement and sponsorship of hatred.” Duly noted, sir. Fait accompli. He then threatens reconciliation, stating “Israelis will become more skeptical about the peace process and we in the Israeli government will have greater difficulty taking the additional confidence-building steps that we have been considering,” unless “Palestinian leaders” stop inciting hatred.

The Israeli Intelligence Minister, who also works as Minister of Strategic Affairs, knows exactly what he’s doing. In a strategic capacity, he’s trying to milk the Palestinian Authority of any remaining vestiges of anti-colonialism. In doing so, he finesses the PA into facilitating the final stages of a colonial agenda: mandatory silence as Judea and Samaria are gradually wrested into Zionist control. Meanwhile, resistance is deemed hatred – a classic imperial ruse.

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

Abby Martin Deconstructs the Corporatocracy on Coast to Coast AM

Posted on September 29, 2013 by abby

Abby Martin talks to John B. Wells on the widely syndicated Coast to Coast AM radio show about the rise of alternative media, her citizen journalism with Media Roots, Occupy Oakland activism and how the TV show Breaking the Set has managed to piss off people in high places, including Rand Paul, Nestlé and the Israeli lobby.

***

Check out Abby’s art at abbymartin.org

MR Original – The Times’ Operations

Posted on February 21, 2013 by oskar

MEDIA ROOTS – Dissection of a 20 February 2013 New York Times article demonstrates the extent to which the “newspaper of record” muddles the truth on issues pertaining to Israel. Even the article’s title, Trial Offers Rare Look at Work of Hezbollah in Europe, is deceptive since the article is filled with superficial, Zionist axioms and mere conjecture.

The opening paragraph asserts the testimony of an alleged Hezbollah operative provides “a rare look inside a covert global war between Israel and Iran.” This is highly misleading. There is no global war of parity between the two countries. In reality, the Iranian people have been victimized by cyber-attacks, unjustifiable sanctions, and a wide array of insidious propaganda. Instead of responding in kind, Iran has taken caution not to provoke Zionism’s itchy trigger finger.

According to the Times, this so-called operative “described being handled by a masked man he knew only as Ayman.” Conveniently, the operative “never saw the face of Ayman” because Ayman “was always wearing a mask.”

At the mysterious Ayman’s behest, this operative transported bags, a package, a cellphone, and two SIM cards around Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. When the operative was arrested, he was in possession of a “small red notebook with the license plate numbers of two buses ferrying Israelis.” Two weeks after he was arrested, a bomb blew up alongside a bus in Burgas, Bulgaria, killing a Bulgarian chauffeur and five Israeli tourists.

According to the Times, “experts say” the Burgas attack was “similar to the one he [the operative] seemed to be planning.” Conveniently, unbiased “experts” are nowhere to be found in the Times’ article, which quotes only two pundits of sharp proclivity.

The first pundit is Daniel Benjamin, a Zionist, who comments on how the operative’s trial might tip European hesitancy in favor of designating Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.” He also commented on Cyprus’ dedication to see this trial proceed, remarking how Cypriot authorities have “done the right thing and they’ve been resolute about it.” Benjamin has worked tirelessly against Hezbollah. As a careerist whose professional brand thrives implicitly on the pursuit of the United States’ foes, whether real or imagined, Benjamin is hardly an unbiased “expert.”

The second “expert” is Matthew Leavitt, a director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful, right-wing, Israeli lobby located in Washington, DC. (AIPAC used to be known as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs). Instead of disclosing Levitt’s ties to this particular Zionist establishment, the New York Times provided him a platform through which he states “the evidence seems quite compelling that what he [the operative] was doing was conducting surveillance for a bombing that would parallel almost exactly what happened in Bulgaria.”

Belén Fernández, a scrupulous author and acclaimed analyst, reports on how much of the so-called evidence in the Burgas bombing was non-existent or manufactured. Investigative journalist Gareth Porter reveals how Bulgaria eventually conceded extremely tenuous evidence, which pertained to Hezbollah’s potential involvement, but only after Bulgarian officials received immense pressure from U.S. and Israeli officials.

For their part, Bulgarian authorities could only note Hezbollah’s potential involvement after relying “heavily on resources from foreign security services,” according to Tihomir Bezlov of the Sofia-based Center for the Study of Democracy. Even with all these externally-supplied “resources,” Bulgarian officials could only allude to “traces in this attack,” which might lead to “Hezbollah’s military wing.” The Times admits “officials in Cyprus have tried to keep the case as low-key as possible, declining in most instances to comment or to release documents.” Perhaps they too are being fed “resources” from foreign nations.

This lack of context – or perhaps selective detailing – plaguing the New York Times’ article is noteworthy.

The Times was generous enough to concede the so-called operative “described himself as ‘threatened, scared and confused,’ during his initial interrogation.” He was also “adamant that he was not participating in a plot to kill Israeli tourists.”

Perhaps the individual in question, who works as an administrator of a Lebanese trading company and aspires to become a fruit juice importer, will turn out to be a verified Hezbollah “operative,” but he could easily have been working for Mossad, whose patronage boasts a lurid history of conducting false flag operations against a variety of targets.

Unfortunately, the Times paints the suspect, who is still undergoing trial, as genuinely nefarious without disclosing their aforementioned prejudices.

Analysis of this article reveals the New York Times’ bias, which is consistent with their record of erasing Israel’s crimes and altering articles to favor Zionist narratives.

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

Photo by Flickr User Ron Almog

@MediaRootsNews