A reporter from Haaretz agreed with what Electronic Intifada reported on Monday, that the latest round of bombing of Gaza started with the wounding of two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded with tanks and artillery to that attack on their soldiers, killing four Palestinians. That might seem excessive, but that kind of massive response has been Israeli policy for a long time. Gaza then responded with rocket fire.
The problem with the NY Times headline “Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds With Airstrikes …“ is that it makes is sound as though the rocket barrage from Gaza just suddenly appeared out of nowhere, completely unprovoked, and for irrational, unexplained reasons.
As Mondoweiss then goes on, the NY Times reporters blames Hamas for being upset “over what they consider the slow pace of Israeli concessions…” This gives the impression of a patient Israel doing its best to satisfy a demanding Hamas and of not moving quickly enough to satisfy them. For a country that has locked Gaza into a lengthy years-long siege.
Mondoweiss then shows us another cute turn of phrase from the NY Times, with protests along the border between Gaza and Israel and how they’ve “turned violent.” The passive phrasing here makes it seem as though the violence just sort of appeared out of nowhere, with no human beings having any real agency to initiate or to control that violence. The casual reader would then draw the entirely understandable conclusion that “both sides” were to blame.
The blog Informed Comment adds up the relative costs on both sides. Palestinians in Gaza have suffered enormously disproportionate casualties compared to those on the Israeli side.
