« UPDATE: The New York Times Changes Problematic Web Article | Main | On Hamas Imagery, New Delhi Television Shows West How It's Done »

August 04, 2014

Miami Herald Editorial Crystal Clear on Gaza Fighting

Hamas cartoon.jpg

A Miami Herald editorial July 28 explained to its readers why Israel rejected U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s ceasefire proposal:

“When Hamas decided to initiate rocket attacks on Israel, it invited the furious reprisal that began earlier this month. Three times since 2006, Israel has responded to aerial assaults on its citizens with fierce counter-attacks, and each time the fighting has come to an inconclusive end that allows its enemies to replenish their arsenals and start planning for the next round.

“For that reason, Israel’s Security Cabinet unanimously rejected a U.S. proposal for a ceasefire on Friday, though Israel agreed to a 12-hour pause for Saturday. The images from the funerals of Israeli troops are heart-rending. The scenes of horror and destruction in Gaza, gut-wrenching. No one could wish for the people of Gaza to endure prolonged misery.

“But it was Hamas that wished for the fighting. First, by attacking Israel, and then by rejecting an Egyptian ceasefire proposal because it wanted its own narrow demands addressed first. That included lifting border restrictions and the release of dozens of former prisoners Israel rearrested in a crackdown on the West Bank after the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers�? (“Israel’s Challenge�?, Miami Herald, July 28, 2014).

The editorial directly blames Hamas for the bloodshed. Unlike other publications that sought a contradictory “even-handed�? approach—balancing a democratic country and a terrorist organization with genocidal goals—The Herald weighed defense against aggression. (CAMERA has noted how a New York Times article, for example, made it seem "Hamas and Israel are equally bad—but Israel is worse."

Instead of narrowly focusing on casualties in the Gaza Strip, The Herald’s editorial sketched the conflict, touching on its history and explaining Hamas’ tactics. Rather than get lost in mistaken interpretations of militarily proportional use of force, the newspaper’s editors tell readers the truth about Hamas and note that for any peace-loving sovereign nation, in this case Israel, “the right of self-defense is not negotiable.�? -- by Ziv Kaufman

Posted by ER at August 4, 2014 06:01 PM


I never understood the point of "proportional reaction". Does it mean that if you're being attacked by 10 enemy troops and they kill one of yours, you have to kill only one of them, and let the other 9 carry on?

The French say "a la guerre comme a la guerre" -- once war starts, the right amount of force is "whatever it takes".

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2014 06:17 PM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)