Hamas Mocks Truce, Scores Propaganda

"Deadly Gaza Border Clash Threatens Truce"
Published Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Isabel Kershner

In covering the recent threat to an Israel-Hamas truce in Gaza, Kershner does more to present Hamas' position than to inform readers.

First, she doesn't verify sources. Does she really know that "witnesses told Maan" anything? She likely just knows that Maan reported that witnesses told of Israeli missiles landing "near a mosque and another near a school or home, while fighters were in the area."

This hollowed paragraph could've made the cut at Hamas' PR bureau. Hamas sends boys into homes, schools and mosques to shoot rockets and shells at Israelis. The IDF shoots back and the press reports that Israel shoots at Palestinian children and holy places.

We read about missiles landing "near a school or home". A question comes to mind: how far is too far to tell a school from a home? Since it's unclear which will illicit more outrage at Israel, Maan goes with both.

Getting to the fraying, Kershner offers readers a short, but convoluted, timeline. We're first told of militants being killed, a clash, an Israeli airstrike, Israeli forces entering Gaza and that this broke a five month streak (even though mortars and rockets have been fired at Israel since June). We're finally told that all this followed an Israeli operation to "destroy a tunnel Israel said it believed" was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers.

Kershner should've began with this and pointed out that the abduction of Schalit – an oft covered story in the Times and elsewhere – was made possible by such a tunnel. This is the second time in a week Kershner reports on the tunnel and fails to mention Schalit's abductors and the tunnel they used to get inside Israel and drag Schalit back. Without this, readers are unaware of a very serious threat to Israelis, no less one that's been actualized and made headlines.

Kershner obscures the chronology. She reports that the militants were "killed in a clash and an Israeli airstrike". Yes, but the airstrike came after the clash and after the militants shot mortars at Israeli forces. Kershner mentioned this in her report this last week, but not today.

Kershner reports that since this initial incident, "Palestinians fired dozens of rockets and mortar shells at Israel" and that "all landed in open areas and caused little damage". We're told that "in response" Israel closed down crossings "where basic goods pass into Gaza".

First, no attempt is made to discern which Palestinians. Were they members of militias? Were they al Qaeda? Were they Hamas? Would we ever hear that "Israelis fired rockets" without knowing if they were militant settlers or the military? This criminal activity needed to be attributed.

Second, while Kershner may get the facts straight, she needed to add meat to them. Instead, she delicately guides readers to be incredulous with Israel. Implicit is "no harm, no foul". What readers gather is that someone’s firing some harmelss, crude rockets into Israeli territory and Israel unleashes its military machine and denies that population's basic goods.

Does the Times judge the response to these acts by the acts' effectiveness? Should Israel keep the crossings into Gaza open until these rockets hit infrastructure, or until someone is killed? Might the Israeli government be concerned with setting a dangerous precedent by not responding?

Commenting on the profoundly difficult situation in which Israel finds itself would require more space, if Kershner were willing. At the very least, she could've called an Israeli official – many of whom speak openly of this dilemma.

But we hear from two Hamas spokesmen, the second of whom denies a report that Barack Obama's team met with members of Hamas prior to the elections. As if it weren’t enough to have three paragraphs of Ahmed Yousef clearing the air, Kershner ends the article by giving voice to that special brand of Hamas propaganda – the peace and love talk.

Kershner reports "Mr. Yousef called on Mr. Obama to open his doors 'to people with different perspectives and opinions on the conflict.'" There's not a chance this bit of newspeak was going to be passed up by the Times, which has been looking to insert into public discussion the most dangerous and the hottest idea: that an Obama shift on Israel could bring peace; the West will build bridges to the Arab world and deal a blow to radicalism.