From Ian:
Khaled Abu Toameh: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias
Khaled Abu Toameh: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias
Two Western journalists recently asked to be accompanied to the Gaza Strip to interview Jewish settlers living there.PMW: Palestinian Greek Orthodox leader inadvertently honors murderer of Greek Orthodox monk
No, this is not the opening line of a joke. These journalists were in Israel at the end of 2015, and they were deadly serious.
Imagine their embarrassment when it was pointed out to them that Israel had completely pulled out of the Gaza Strip ten years ago.
You have to have some pity for them. These foreign colleagues were rookies who aimed to make an impression by traveling to a "dangerous" place such as the Gaza Strip to report on the "settlers" living there. Their request, however, did not take anyone, even my local colleagues, by surprise.
These "parachute journalists," as they are occasionally called, are catapulted into the region without being briefed on the basic facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, correspondents such as these are more the rule than the exception. A particular clueless British reporter springs to mind:
When Israel assassinated Hamas's founder and spiritual leader, Ahmed Yasmin, in 2004, a British newspaper dispatched its crime reporter to Jerusalem to cover the event. To this reporter, the region, as well as Hamas, were virgin territory. His editors had sent him to the Middle East, he said, because no one else was willing to go.
Well, our hero reported on the assassination of Ahmed Yassin from the bar of the American Colony Hotel. His byline claimed that he was in the Gaza Strip and had interviewed relatives of the slain leader of Hamas.
Sometimes one feels as if one is some sort of a lightning rod for these tales. Another Ramallah-based colleague shared that a few years ago he received a request from a cub correspondent to help arrange an interview with Yasser Arafat. Except at that point, Arafat had been dead for several years. Fresh out of journalism school and unknowledgeable about the Middle East, the journalist was apparently considered by his editors a fine candidate for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Last month, the Bethlehem municipality decided to honor 52 terrorist prisoners from Bethlehem - all of whom are serving life sentences. The unveiling of the exhibit “in honor of the [Bethlehem] district’s 52 prisoners sentenced to life,” was “a salute of loyalty and commitment,” speakers at the event stated. [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 31, 2015]Amb. Alan Baker: Are There Double Standards in Israel’s Application of the Rule of Law in the Territories?
Among the participants in the unveiling “sponsored and supervised by the Bethlehem municipality” in honor of the murderers, was Palestinian Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Sebastia Atallah Hanna.
By his participation in the event, Archbishop Hanna inadvertently glorified a terrorist who murdered one of Hanna’s fellow clergy, Greek Orthodox monk Gur Pzipokatsatakis.
On June 12, 2002, Greek Orthodox monk Gur Pzipokatsatakis was murdered in a drive-by shooting near Maale Adumim. Palestinian terrorist and a member of the Tanzim (Fatah terror faction) Yasser Rabai’ah from Bethlehem participated in the attack and was later arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Regrettably, there would appear to be a lack of understanding – whether by Ambassador Shapiro himself or by those senior State Department and White House officials who instruct him – as to the legal situation prevalent in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria.
Indeed, there exist two legal frameworks.
The one applied by Israel’s Civil Administration vis-Ã -vis the Palestinian residents of Judea and Samaria is based on the international norms regarding the administration of territory occupied or administered following armed conflict and pending a peace agreement. These norms, set out in the 1907 Hague Rules and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, enable an administering power, in administering a hostile local population, to impose various limitations on the basic freedoms that exist in any ordinary civil legal system. All this pending a permanent peace arrangement regarding the fate of the territory.
The second legal framework covers the Israeli residents of towns, villages and other forms of settlement within the territory, who, not being part of the local Palestinian population, are subject on an ad-personam basis to Israeli law. As such, they are not covered by those limitations that apply solely vis-Ã -vis the local population of the territory.
Unlike the insinuations in Ambassador Shapiro’s statement, this dual set of legal frameworks is not based on any double standards, but on a clear division of legal authorities dictated by both international humanitarian law and Israeli law. (h/t Yenta Press)























