RSS
Hamas Counted on Biased Western Journalism — and They Got It
CNN’s International Diplomatic Editor, Nic Robertson, recently authored an analysis (“Hamas gambled on the suffering of civilians in Gaza. Netanyahu played right into it,” Jun. 11) castigating Israelis for foolishly falling for Hamas’ tricks.
Instead, Robertson’s piece ironically illustrates the failure of CNN’s journalism. Rather than successfully depicting Israelis as fools caught in Hamas’ trap, the analysis instead exemplifies how Western journalists have become Hamas’ “useful idiots.”
The gist of Robertson’s analysis is that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has masterfully manipulated Israelis. “Netanyahu has played right into” Sinwar’s trap by waging a “brutal” war against Hamas, thus turning public opinion against Israel.
But in crafting his argument, Robertson unwittingly demonstrates how it is himself, and the media at large, that have played into Hamas’ hands. In doing so, he shows that it’s not the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that has turned public opinion against Israel — but rather, the media’s portrayal of the IDF’s conduct.
That portrayal involves spreading propaganda and narratives crafted by Hamas, which are entirely detached from reality.
Perhaps the most glaring example of this is when Robertson declares, without qualification or attribution, that the number of Palestinians killed so far in the war is more than 36,000. This number comes straight from Hamas’ media office, and has been widely discredited, to the point that even the United Nations quietly backtracked on repeating the media office’s figures.
It is publicly known that Hamas has a cynical strategy to deliberately exploit global sympathy for civilian casualties. That is why Hamas doesn’t just engage in the most sophisticated and systematic exploitation of human shielding, but also regularly inflates the casualty figures for media consumption, which CNN falls for — hook, line, and sinker.
And CNN is known to not just uncritically repeat these propaganda figures, but to deceptively obscure the source in a transparent attempt to give the figures a false appearance of credibility. The network has repeatedly laundered these Hamas figures by falsely attributing them to the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations, and even foreign aid agencies, who themselves acknowledge they’re just using Hamas’ figures.
The network has also worked overtime to portray the IDF’s conduct in the worst light possible, omitting and obscuring important, contradictory context. It has repeatedly made a big deal about the large blast radius of Israel’s 2,000-pound bombs — in order to portray the IDF as indiscriminate — all while omitting that these bombs are intentionally detonated underground, thereby substantially reducing the blast radius.
When Robertson then goes on to write that the “devastating effectiveness” of Israeli weapons “is becoming a liability” in terms of international opinion, he’s omitting that the reason they’re controversial is because his own network has distorted how these weapons are actually being used. Worse, CNN journalists have used their platform to engage in activism in favor of an arms embargo on Israel.
But what Robertson’s analysis shows best is just how skewed the network’s overall coverage has been.
Israel is placed under a microscope in a way that Hamas and the Palestinians are not, as if this isn’t an armed conflict between two sides, but a story of “oppression,” of one side imposing its will on the other. With every new event in the conflict, CNN spills much ink casting responsibility, real or imagined, onto Israel, while the role the Palestinians played is often entirely absent.
This isn’t just an anecdotal observation. If one searches CNN articles between October 7, 2023, and March 31, 2024, for articles on the conflict, the data bears out this disparity.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is mentioned 9-times as often as Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and an obscene 31-times as often as both Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh.
As with CNN’s overall coverage of the conflict, Robertson also avoids truly tangling with the actions and agency of Palestinians, in order to cast responsibility solely on the Jewish state. His analysis was prompted by a Wall Street Journal report about several messages sent by Yahya Sinwar in which the terrorist leader made clear the organization sees Gazan civilians not as subjects to be protected, but as pawns to be sacrificed. The goal: to elicit international outrage and pressure against Israel.
Sinwar knows that trying to use Gaza civilian casualties for Hamas’ benefit will work because media figures like Robertson can’t, or won’t, entertain the moral and legal distinction between a military that does its best to avoid civilian casualties, and the terrorist organization that deliberately exploits the civilians as cannon fodder to feed to Western cable news audiences. (Of course, Hamas — which controls Gaza — also directly targets women and children, and states that its goal is to eradicate all of Israel).
Yet instead of taking this opportunity to give CNN’s audience a straightforward explanation of how Palestinian terrorists have intentionally and cynically exacerbated the war’s effect on civilians, Robertson turns the story on its head and instead makes it once again about Israeli actions. Think about that. A Hamas leader admitted to deliberately engaging in war crimes as a matter of strategy, and CNN’s Robertson still made it instead about Israel being bad.
The refusal to seriously consider Palestinian agency is how we end up with a headline like “Hamas gambled on the suffering of civilians in Gaza. Netanyahu played right into it.”
It might as well read: “Hamas put civilians in harms way. Here’s why harm to civilians is still Netanyahu’s fault.”
Sinwar couldn’t have asked for a more useful journalist.
In a similar vein, Robertson also repeats the “you can’t kill an ideology” argument, a yawn-inducing platitude associated with Western armchair strategists sitting thousands of miles away on the other side of an ocean from any real threat. Strangely, while the international coalition didn’t kill the Islamic State’s ideology, no one seems to talk about the threat from that organization much since its “caliphate” was obliterated and its military power degraded into insignificance.
You can’t kill an ideology, but you can kill its ability to wreak havoc and commit wide-scale atrocities, even if western media analysts seem intent on advocating for the preservation of terroristic military power.
Furthermore, a recent opinion poll showed that while West Bank Palestinians still support Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre at a rate of 73%, Gazans only support it by 57%. So maybe the war has undermined Hamas’ support in Gaza (or at least support for terrorism).
This is all, of course, to say nothing of the typical inaccuracies and spin found in CNN articles. Robertson claims, for example: “Earlier this year, university campuses across the United States and Europe combusted in spontaneous protest over the toll of Israel’s war on civilians in Gaza…”
This isn’t “Israel’s war,” the war is not “on civilians in Gaza” (at best, atrocious writing), the protests did not start “earlier this year,” they were not “spontaneous,” and they were not “over the toll of Israel’s war.”
Israel was attacked — it is Hamas’ war. The pro-Hamas demonstrations were already being organized on October 7, before Hamas had even finished butchering its way through southern Israel and before Israel even had a chance to begin any organized campaign in Gaza. Within hours of the attack, malicious anti-Israel organizations were already sending out “toolkits” not just glorifying the terrorist massacre, but also giving instructions to the demonstrators.
Robertson also claims that Ireland, Spain, Norway, and Portugal recognized “Palestine” because they are “frustrated Netanyahu won’t agree to a peace deal,” suggesting the problem is “Israeli intransigence.” It’s an astonishing inversion of reality, given that it was Palestinian leadership that has repeatedly said no to offers on the table since even before the State of Israel was born, including three major offers in the 2000s.
But why get into the history of Palestinian rejectionism when CNN can instead just blame some unspecified “Israeli intransigence” for the lack of a Palestinian state that the Palestinians keep saying no to?
And why tell the truth when the network can get away with a bald-faced lie like, “None of this means Sinwar will be winning a popular vote in Gaza during his lifetime…?” Except Hamas, an internationally designated terrorist organization, did win the popular vote in Gaza in 2006, and the pro-Hamas sentiment hasn’t changed. Palestinian surveys consistently show that Palestinians widely approve of Hamas’s October 7 massacre and that a large majority (61%) prefer Hamas in control of Gaza over Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Of course, misleading audiences about polling data, and even outright fabricating polling data to avoid acknowledging Palestinian responsibility for the conflict, is a regular occurrence at the network.
Robertson is free to armchair strategize from his comfortable perch in the United States, where he need not fear multiple terrorist armies just a few hundred yards from his family. But before accusing others of playing into Hamas’ game, it would be wise of Robertson, and indeed the entire CNN network, to consider the wind they’ve blown beneath Hamas’ wings with their slanted, inaccurate, and lazy coverage.
David M. Litman is a Research Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).
The post Hamas Counted on Biased Western Journalism — and They Got It first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Anti-Israel protesters demonstrated outside a Thornhill synagogue, despite a bylaw protecting houses of worship
A raucous anti-Israel protest outside a synagogue in Thornhill, Ont., which was hosting an Israeli real estate event, is being called a failed test of a bylaw that was intended to keep demonstrations at a distance from religious institutions.
The protest in front of the Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto synagogue (BAYT) on Dec. 9 saw chaotic swarms of counter-protesters and police officers following demonstrators along residential sidewalks while the event took place inside the synagogue. York Regional Police (YRP) had closed a number of streets in advance of the event.
In June, Vaughan city council passed a bylaw preventing “nuisance demonstrations” within 100 metres of synagogues and other vulnerable infrastructure, in direct response to previous demonstrations over Israeli real estate events at synagogues.
Yet on Monday night, demonstrators assembled across from the synagogue, on the south side of Clark Avenue, well within 100 meters of BAYT, for the majority of the hours-long event.
Vaughan’s Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure bylaw prohibits “anyone from organizing or participating in any and all nuisance demonstrations within 100 metres of the property line” of places of worship, schools, childcare centres, hospitals and group-care facilities.
“Nuisance demonstrations,” according to the bylaw, “includes one or more people publicly protesting or expressing views on an issue in any manner—whether intended or not—that causes a reasonable person, on an objective standard, to be intimidated meaning that they are either concerned for their safety or security, or unable to access vulnerable social infrastructure.”
The bylaw cites examples of potentially intimidating behaviour; however, enforcement of the bylaw appears to be subject to interpretation by YRP officers and city bylaw enforcement officers onsite to determine if protests are deemed “peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations” as opposed to “nuisance demonstrations.”
“When deciding whether a reasonable person would be intimidated by a demonstration, enforcement staff will make a case-by-case assessment having regard to the objective facts and also what prior court decisions have said about what a ‘reasonable person’ is,” the bylaw read. “Not all instances of individuals stating they are intimidated will necessarily lead to by-law enforcement. Enforcement staff will use best efforts to enforce the by-law and minimally impair individuals’ Charter rights.”
At one point, police—responding to complaints reportedly coming from the demonstrators, whose loud noises such as drums and PA systems police had prohibited—investigated noise from a nearby home blasting Israeli music, and residents were asked to lower the volume while protesters walked nearby streets.
While hectic, there were no reports of property damages or physical assaults. Similar protests at Israeli real estate expos in March resulted in arrests and physical altercations.
Rabbi Daniel Korobkin of BAYT said he had been in close contact with Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca before, during and after the real estate event and protest on Dec. 9. He said that while Del Duca and other officials, including MPP Laura Smith, are “trying their best to help the Jewish community,” he thinks there’s a disconnect between what the bylaw was supposed to allow police to do and what took place.
“We don’t know where this directive is coming from, where the [police] have interpreted the bylaw in as liberal a way as possible,” Rabbi Korobkin told The CJN in a phone interview. He said he’d met with YRP officers ahead of the event and asked them to specifically uphold trespassing laws and a noise bylaw that he says police did not enforce during the last protests.
“We asked them to uphold the new bylaw, which allegedly prohibits any kind of intimidating protest, or nuisance protest, within 100 metres of the house of worship. We had every reason to believe that the police would prevent protesters from being within 100 metres of our property. But that did not transpire,” he said.
“What instead transpired is that the police told us that anyone who wants to stand within 100 metres is welcome to do so provided that they are not threatening, that they are not chanting hate speech, that they are not saying something that’s inciteful. And so, the police allowed the protesters to be on the other side of Clark Avenue from the synagogue.”
He notes “a very sincere effort to uphold the bylaw on noise” by officers who would shut down loud sounds “any time someone tried a drum or a loudspeaker.”
“We’re grateful for that. But when it came to the shouting of epithets, like to ‘Go back to Europe’ or ‘You’re guilty of genocide,’ which was one of the signs that was held up, the police did not uphold their side of the bargain.”
He says there were different police unit commanders on each side of the road, and that “the police presence that was on our side basically said, ‘I’m not in charge of their side.’”
“The fact is that they were only doing some of their job, they weren’t doing the entire job,” said Rabbi Korobkin.
“There were groups of protesters who were walking private streets… making loud and boisterous comments, intimidating the neighbourhood, and—bylaw or no bylaw—that simply is their right to do so, and the culture that currently persists within the GTA is that you can say whatever you want, even if it’s inciteful, even if it’s hate speech, and no one’s going to stop you.
“While I’m not intimidated, and we’re going to continue doing business as usual, I think there is fear within the Jewish community, and concern that people feel that our authorities don’t really care about the Jewish community.”
The test of the Vaughan bylaw, according to Rabbi Korobkin, shows the need to “go back to the drawing board and start all over again.”
“There needs to be a different strategy, where our society has a zero-tolerance policy for hatred on either side.
“There is fear in the community. People just want a sense of security. We’re right now on a powder keg,” he said, referring to the synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, set on fire the previous Shabbat, while people were inside.
“We’ve experienced Jewish schools being shot at and vandalized. People… want to know that the police care as much about the Jewish community as they do about these violent protesters.
“To give you an illustration…. [as the night was] winding down, the police went first to the Jews on the side of the synagogue telling them to disperse, before they told the protesters to disperse, which to me is just a further indication that there’s a lopsided sense of priority here.”
He says the real estate event inside the synagogue included 22 realtors who came from Israel, and that the synagogue discouraged the inclusion of properties for sale in the West Bank. The CJN did not independently verify details of properties for sale at the event.
“We made it clear to them that we did not want them to showcase any properties on the other side of the Green Line, even though, personally, I have no issue with that,” he says. “We did not want to deliberately be a provocation.”
“In retrospect, that was probably naive, because the opposition, the people who came out and were told to come out in protest, are people who sincerely believe that any square inch that exists in the country called Israel today cannot be legitimately purchased by Jews.”
Mayor Del Duca, who played a substantial role in creating and passing the bylaw, acknowledges that the Dec. 9 protest shows there’s plenty to learn from how recent events played out.
“People are, it’s a range of confused and angry, concerned, disappointed… I think mostly looking for answers to the legitimate questions they have about what took place on Monday and the difference between their understanding of the bylaw and then what they saw in real time, or what they’ve heard about in the aftermath,” he said.
“There [are] a lot of lessons I think we do have to learn from Monday night and I am going to work very, very hard along with city staff and YRP and others to make sure that we do learn those lessons so that we can do even better going forward, should the need ever arise,” he said.
Del Duca told The CJN in a phone interview on Dec. 11 that the city and YRP need to work together to “go through real-time potential scenarios” to learn and improve on the response to Monday’s demonstration.
He says in speaking to residents Monday night and since, he’s had to explain what “nuisance” demonstrations mean from a legal standpoint.
“I totally understand where [residents who are upset are] coming from. They think of the concept of a nuisance in somewhat of a conventional way. But there’s also a legal definition of what that’s supposed to mean, and where’s the line between what was and what wasn’t,” he said. “None of what I’m saying is meant to diminish the fears, the concerns, the anger that our residents are [feeling].
“I think the responsibility that I have and we have is, we saw in real time how using the bylaw is a tool played out, or maybe not using it as a tool played out,” he said.
Del Duca says the work ahead involves developing policies and protocols for city and police, including addressing the distinctions between types of demonstrations.
“The notion of the 100 metres is something that’s really important. Obviously, it’s foundational to the bylaw itself, and I know that’s captured a lot of attention through the months since we introduced and passed the bylaw.
“Where it becomes less clear, and we said this throughout this entire process… is that the bylaw doesn’t impact what is peaceful protest,” he said.
“Regardless of the issue or the cause… if a person is standing within 100 metres of a place of worship or a school or a daycare, and they’re engaging in what is legitimately peaceful protest, you know, that that’s not something that would trigger the bylaw in terms of making them move further away.”
He says the key question to determine will be whether a peaceful protest turns to a nuisance demonstration.
“I think we have more work to do in terms of playing out all of those scenarios and then having a strong sense of how to respond in the moment.”
He says that while much work was done in developing the bylaw’s policies or protocols “so that if we ever ended up in a situation like this, that would be a clear understanding of how we would deal with it,” this was also the first time the bylaw was tested.
Vaughan was also the first municipality to pass such a bylaw, he said.
Toronto considered a similar “protest bubble zone” bylaw, but councillors voted against it, instead allowing the City and police to develop plans for managing protests and rapid responses to hateful graffiti.
Del Duca acknowledges there aren’t always immediate, clear distinctions, for example, in the middle of a demonstration.
“It does come down to interpretation. But I’m convinced that with enough collaboration and enough scenario planning that we should be able to come to a good spot. It would have been ideal if that had been in place before Monday, I think some of it was, but there’s always a difference between the theoretical preparedness and the practical realities on the ground in a tense situation like we were dealing with on Monday night,” he said.
He says he understands how community members are feeling, and confirms he’s been speaking with Rabbi Korobkin regularly.
“I would just say to the community, I’m aware of the work that still needs to be done and I am committed to making sure that we do it and that I think will position all of us even more strongly to be even better prepared in the future.”
Gila Martow, the Vaughan Ward 5 councillor who represents BAYT’s district, echoed the call to answer questions about the disconnect between expectations and outcomes on Dec. 9, and address community concerns around protest scenarios outside synagogues in the area.
“I have a lot of questions that I’m trying to get answers to, including why police would tell my residents to turn down Israeli music in their backyards, supposedly at the request of the uninvited visitors,” wrote Martow in a brief email statement.
“While I respect the efforts of York Regional Police to keep everyone safe, we need to come up with strategies to emotionally support the Jewish community in the face of unrelenting hate.”
The CJN contacted York Regional Police, who confirmed the service would provide written responses to questions; however, the statement was not received by publication time.
The post Anti-Israel protesters demonstrated outside a Thornhill synagogue, despite a bylaw protecting houses of worship appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israeli Defense Chief Says ‘Now a Chance’ for Deal to Release All Hostages in Gaza
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz looks on, amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, in Jerusalem, Nov. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz told his US counterpart, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a phone call on Wednesday that there was a real chance to reach a deal to release all the remaining hostages held in Gaza.
“There is now a chance for a new deal that will allow the return of all the hostages, including those with American citizenship,” Katz said during the call, according to a readout from his office.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists kidnapped over 250 hostages during their invasion of and massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, dragging the captives into neighboring Gaza. Israel responded to the onslaught with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.
For months, the US, Egypt, and Qatar have unsuccessfully tried to broker a ceasefire and hostage-release deal between the two sides. In recent days, however, there have been signs that stalled negotiations might be revived and a breakthrough is possible.
Since Hamas’s invasion last year, 109 of the 251 hostages have been released, mostly during a week-long truce in late November 2023. Eight others have been rescued alive, and the bodies of 38 have been recovered.
Israel believes 100 hostages remain in Gaza, including 96 who were kidnapped last Oct. 7, and at least a third of them have been declared dead by the Israeli military.
During their Wednesday call, Katz and Austin also discussed the situation in Syria following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which for years had allowed Iran to use Syrian territory to send weapons to its terrorist proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The two leaders “agreed on the danger posed by Iran and its [weapons] shipments, and agreed to cooperate to prevent attempts to smuggle weapons from Iran to Lebanon via Syria.”
Iran has also been the chief international sponsor of Hamas, providing the Palestinian terrorist group with weapons, funding, and training.
The post Israeli Defense Chief Says ‘Now a Chance’ for Deal to Release All Hostages in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pentagon Rebuffs Allegations Iran Behind Mysterious Drones Flying Over New Jersey
Drones are seen at a site at an undisclosed location in Iran, in this handout image obtained on April 20, 2023. Photo: Iranian Army/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The Pentagon batted down claims by US Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) on Wednesday that Iran has spy drones flying over the state of New Jersey.
Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters that the US Defense Department does not believe that the drones floating over New Jersey originate from “a foreign entity or adversary.”
“There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States, and there’s no so-called mothership launching drones towards the United States,” Singh said.
The Pentagon’s comments came after Van Drew dropped bombshell allegations about the drones during an interview with Fox News host Harris Faulkner earlier on Wednesday. The lawmaker stated that Iran, which US intelligence agencies have for years identified as the world’s chief state sponsor of global terrorism, has used a stealth drone to illegally surveil America from the air for around a month.
Van Drew said that during his time on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, particularly its subcommittee on aviation, he has “gotten to know people, and from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources.”
“I’m gonna tell you the real deal. Iran launched a mothership probably about a month ago that contains these drones,” Van Drew said. “It’s off the east coast of the United States of America. They’ve launched drones.”
The lawmaker dismissed the notion that the drones are from US agencies, stating that American lawmakers would have been informed. He also stated that the drones are far beyond the technological capabilities of the standard hobbyist, suggesting that an “adversarial country,” such as Iran, was most likely responsible for the drones.
He added that Iran “made a deal with China to purchase drones, motherships, and technology.”
Van Drew asserted that the drones traveling over American airspace should be “shot down” and that the “military is on alert” over the matter.
Faulkner noted that US President-elect Donald Trump possesses a large home in New Jersey, referencing his large estate and golf club in Bedminster, potentially intensifying the national security threat that the drones present.
Van Drew claimed that the drones are “across the country” and that the federal government must “get them down” before they further compromise American security.
New Jersey residents have raised alarm bells over the past few weeks over mysterious drones traversing across their skies. Thus far, the federal government has been unable to determine the exact origin of the drones. An FBI official told Congress on Tuesday that the agency has not pinned responsibility for the drones on any individual party.
Iran has an extensive history of attempting to puncture the American national security apparatus. The country has been accused of attempting to embed spies within American institutions and agencies. It has also been accused of encouraging violent protests and spreading anti-Israel, Islamist propaganda across social media platforms in an attempt to disrupt American society.
Iran additionally plotted an assassination attempt against Trump, according to the US Department of Justice.
The post Pentagon Rebuffs Allegations Iran Behind Mysterious Drones Flying Over New Jersey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login