Honest Reporting: Myths and Facts: Gaza’s Deadly “Protests”
During the Passover weekend, some 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza approached the border with Israel and carried out a variety of violent activities in what they call the “Land Day Protests” or the “March of Return.”
We’ve seen quite a bit of mishandled coverage, so here are the main myths and facts so you can better understand the situation and also speak up when you see inaccurate or biased media.
Myth: This is a non-violent “protest” or a “march.”
Fact: It is none of the above.
Despite its official name, which has been widely repeated by the media, this is not a “protest” nor a “march” by any commonsense or dictionary understanding of the words.
Picturing something like a picket parade on Capitol Hill? Think again. From the beginning we saw significant violence which would not be tolerated by any country.
According to the IDF and multiple videos, the violence began with burning tires, slinging rocks, throwing molotov cocktails and other varieties of firebombs. The correct word for this type of activity is a “riot.”
The violence quickly escalated to live gunfire on the IDF. Firing on a country’s army is typically called an “act of war.”
Under the cover of live fire and the smokescreen from burning tires, armed terror organizations were attempting to breach the border and cross into Israel with weapons. That is called an “attempted infiltration.”
For proper context, it is tremendously important to imagine how the United States or any European state might respond to such violence on its borders, or direct gunfire on its army.
Terminology matters, and journalists should call these events what they are. The all too common headline, “Israeli forces kill 16 Palestinians in border protests,” communicates a very different understanding than the more accurate, “…killed in attempted infiltration of Israel,” or “…in confrontation with Israeli army.”
Myth: Israel is shooting innocent civilians.
Fact: Of the estimated 30,000 people present, as of this time of writing, 17 have been confirmed dead. Of those, at least 10 are confirmed as active fighters of Hamas, Global Jihad, or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, all designated as terror organizations by the United States, the European Union, and others. (All 17 have been confirmed as young men of military age).
PMW: Fatah: "My rifle's fire is the death of the enemies and music to my ears"
Abbas to the UN: "We have been committed to fostering a culture of peace, rejection of violence"Trump and the Fading Ghost of an Illusion
Contradicting PA Chairman Abbas' assurances to international audiences that Palestinians want peace, his Fatah Movement continues to promote violence and terror as Palestinian ideals.
Fatah's Bethlehem branch posted the image above of two men wearing Arab headdresses shooting a machine gun as two Israeli aircraft explode in mid-air, with accompanying text rejoicing over "the death of the enemies":
Posted text: "Fatah was here"
Text on image: "O Fatah, this is my rifle in my hand hugging my ribs, and its fire is the death of the enemies and music to my ears"
[Facebook page of the Fatah Movement - Bethlehem Branch, March 22, 2018]
The violent essence of this post, like others Palestinian Media Watch has exposed, contradicts Abbas' recent assurances to the UN:
"Our conviction is deep and our position is clear regarding the use of arms of any kind. We... are also opposed to conventional weapons, which have caused such vast destruction of States in our region and around the world. We have thus been committed to fostering a culture of peace, rejection of violence..."
[PA Chairman Abbas' speech at the UN Security Council, Feb. 20, 2018, Times of Israel, Feb. 21. 2018]
Commenting on Abbas' speech, Palestinian political analyst Hani Abu Zaid recently stated on official PA TV that he believes Abbas' Fatah Movement will return to "armed struggle" - the PA's euphemism for violence and terror - unless the international peace conference Abbas called for is held:
They believe they have three trump cards to play.
The first is that Iran has a demographic reserve of some 20 million people of "fighting age" and is thus capable of sustaining levels of casualties unthinkable for Americans. The second is that Iran is already the missile superpower of the Middle East and could target all of Washington's allies in the region.
Iran's third trump card is its nuclear program. Without it, the other two cards will not have the desired effect, especially if the US unleashes its new generation of low-grade nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use.
The real issue, as far as US and its allies are concerned, is that the regime in Iran has been, is and most likely will remain, a threat with or without nuclear weapons.
Iran did not seize the US diplomats as hostages with nuclear weapons; nor did it massacre 241 US Marines in Beirut with an atomic bomb. The mischief that Iran is making in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain is not backed by nuclear power either.
So the real question is: How to deal with a maverick power that has built its strategy on fomenting discord and instability not only in the Middle East but anywhere else it gets a chance?
Washington hawks, among them Bolton perhaps, believe that the only realistic policy towards Iran is one of regime change before the Khomeinists build their nuclear arsenal. They believe that could be achieved with a mixture of military and diplomatic pressure, combined with moral and material support for a pro-democracy movement in Iran.
The Europeans, however, fear that any attempt even at soft regime-change may push the Khomeinists on the offensive in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, the Caucasus, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Could a realistic policy be developed through a sober assessment of both positions? If yes, that would requires far more sophistication than the "to waiver or not to waiver" debate over what is; in fact; the fading ghost of an accord wrought from dangerous illusions.