Who Violated the Ceasefire First?
Sderot residents inspect damage to a house after a Palestinian rocket slammed into it on June 24, 2008, five days after the ceasefire was declared (Photo by Rafel Ben-Ari/Chameleons Eye)
Ha’aretz‘s Gideon Levy, like any columnist, is entitled to argue for whatever policy he prefers, but journalistic ethics require that even Op-Eds stick to factual accuracy. Yet, in his column today advocating direct negotiations which Hamas, he writes:
The ceasefire was violated first by Israel with its unnecessary operation of blowing up a tunnel.
Of course, Israel blew up the tunnel in question the beginning of November, while Palestinians again started firing rockets into Israel just days after the June 19 ceasefire was declared.
By Aug. 28, Palestinians had fired 40 rockets and mortars at Israel.
More from SNAPSHOTS
CNN’s Amanpour Condemns “power grab” By Israel’s Prime Minister and Others
April 1, 2020
We’ve said it often, but it’s worth repeating: Anyone interested in reasonably unbiased information about Israel (at least) should avoid the broadcasts of CNN’s Chief International Correspondent and Anchor, Christiane Amanpour. In characterizing responses to [...]
Seattle Media Oblivious To Imam’s Hateful Indoctrination Condemning Jews
January 7, 2020
The Masjid Ar-Rahmah mosque teaching – that Allah transformed Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying him – delivered by Imam (prayer leader) Mohamad Joban – was posted online by mosque personnel. This December 2019 [...]
AP Distorts: Bethlehem ‘Almost Completely Surrounded’
December 10, 2019
Over two years after improving inaccurate language falsely citing Israel's security "barrier surrounding the biblical city" of Bethlehem, the Associated Press once again misrepresents. AP's Joseph Krauss and Mohammad Daraghmeh wrote yesterday ("Palestinians in Bethlehem [...]
Reuters Errs on Administrative Detention For ‘Anti-Israel Activity’
November 5, 2019
The Ofer Prison, near Ramallah (Photo by Tamar Sternthal) A Reuters article today egregiously misrepresents administrative detention, erroneously asserting that it is mainly applied to "Palestinians suspected of anti-Israeli activities," when in fact the Israeli [...]