In the repeated examples of anti-Israel bias highlighted in media all around us, two recent examples from the Associated Press might not stand out. True, they are not so salient as to place the onus for the war in Gaza on Israel or to overlook Hamas’ use of civilians as military shields in homes and hospitals. But it would be a mistake to tolerate two “minor” examples of bias that we cite presently. Just the opposite. It is the seemingly small but incessant pieces of anti-Israel bias that give the larger examples their credibility.
Both of the “minor” examples appear in an Associated Press story written by Wafaa Shurafa and Samy Magdy, datelined Rafah, Gaza Strip, published in the Denver Post (March 12).
Example #1:
The Muslim holiday Ramadan is referred to as “the normally joyous holiday,” which, however, is not joyous this year. One resident of Rafah is quoted as saying, “You don’t see anyone with joy in their eyes. Every family is sad. . . . ”
Later in the story, there is a reference to “Oct. 7.” That’s it. A date. Nothing more. Not a Jewish holiday. No reference to Simchat Torah, “the joyous holiday of the Torah.” The disjunct references to “the normally joyous holiday” of Ramadan and to “Oct. 7” yields this: One side in this conflict — the side that did not start it — suffered on a simple date in the calendar. The other side in this conflict — the side that did start it — suffers on “the normally joyous holiday” of Ramadan.
The juxtaposition is clear: Muslims, who must see their own joyous holiday marred by war, and Jews, whose joyous holiday does not even merit a mention. The “minor” message is clear: Islam counts. Judaism does not.
Example #2:
The report from the IDF that it has killed 13,000 Hamas fighters is cited, with this qualifier: “without providing evidence.” The IDF provides numbers, but no evidence for them, notes AP. Its report from the Gaza Health Ministry is different. AP says that 31,112 Palestinians have been killed since the war began —but there is no qualifier, no “without providing evidence.”The IDF’s numbers are doubted. The Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers are not.
This is especially egregious, given these two facts: Hamas’ Health Ministry is governed by the same ideology that perpetrated and celebrated the savage attacks on Simchat Torah — Shabbat —Oct. 7. The IDF has a long history of accurate reporting and of correcting itself when it fails to meet its own high standards. The AP message is clear: Hamas is reliable. Israel is not.
Beware of these “minor” pieces of bias. Precisely because they slip in so smoothly they bestow credibility on the whole anti-Israel narrative.
• • •
Ditto, the Economist (Feb. 24). It quotes Israel as saying that Gaza’s hospitals have been used to store weapons and that under Gaza’s biggest hospital, Hamas maintains a tunnel network. “But,” the Economist writes, “Israel has not allowed independent investigators to access the hospitals and verify the allegations.”
No such independent verification is either demanded or provided by the Economist as it cites a long string of data points about Gaza facilities, such as: only 25% of Gaza’s hospitals are operating and only 33.3% of its health clinics; 130 patients and 15 medics remain in Nasser hospital without electricity or running water; 29,000 Gazans have died (which the Economist feels comfortable prophesying will increase to 58,000 if fighting continues as is — talk about lack of verification!).
Oh, and check this: Israel originally said that Hamas had a command-and-control center under Shifa hospital, but once having searched within and underneath the hospital, did not find one, and corrected its original report. According to the flow of the Economist story, this is supposed to cast doubt on Israel’s finding that Hamas did maintain terror tunnels under the hospital. Actually, it’s the opposite. When Israel erred, it said so. That, the Economist accepts without noting the absence of independent verification. But when Israel did not err, that is, when it reported finding terror tunnels under the hospital — that, the Economist does not accept “without independent verification.”
The Economist talks out of both sides of its mouth, maligning Israel as it goes.
Copyright © 2024 by the Intermountain Jewish News
