Why Are There Still Refugee Camps in Gaza?

This week, we’ve witnessed the aerial attack by Israel against a refugee camp in Gaza under which Hamas built tunnels and other facilities. I’ll leave it to another day (and some of my previous posts about Israel) to discuss the use of refugee camps (and hospitals, schools, mosques, and other civilian infrastructure, not to mention the civilians themselves) by Hamas as shields for Hamas members and ammunition caches and whether it is legal and/or appropriate (morally and/or strategically) for Israel to target a refugee camp (or civilian infrastructure) in order to kill the leaders of Hamas or reduce the group’s fighting effectiveness (but see some of my previous posts on Gaza and proportionate response, such as What Is a "Proportionate Response" to Terror? (Repost), A Few Random Thoughts About Gaza, and Again, I Ask: How Should Israel Respond ).

Instead, I want to take a little time to think about a different question: Why, in 2023, are there still refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon? For today’s post, I’ll largely limit the discussion to Gaza (for obvious reasons).

The Israeli airstrikes targeted the Jabalya refugee camp in the northern part of Gaza. According to page 81 of the Preliminary Results of the Population, Housing and Establishments Census 2017 (a report prepared by Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [under the heading “State of Palestine”]; I’ll leave it to each reader to determine the extent to which they trust statistics put forth by Palestinian authorities), the population of the Jabalya refugee camp in 2017, was 49,462. The camp should not be confused with the adjacent, much larger town, bearing the same name. The Jabalya refugee camp was established by the United Nations in 1948 following Israel’s War of Independence (or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War depending on your preferred terminology). At the end of the War, Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the camp was created by the newly established United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to provide shelter for Palestinians who had left what was now Israel. Again, the question of who qualifies as a refugee and just how many refugees there were following the War (overall estimates [i.e., not just refugees who sought shelter in Gaza] tend to range between 600,000 – 800,000, but there is a lot of nuance to and disagreement about those numbers) are discussions for another post. Let’s just agree that in 1948 a large number of people sought shelter and support in the newly established Jabalya refugee camp which was operated in the UNRWA in territory controlled by Egypt. I don’t think any portion of that statement should be controversial.

At almost the exact same time, India was being partitioned (also from British controlled territory and also administered, at least in part, by the United Nations). In the process of partitioning India, it is estimated that somewhere between 14 and 18 million people migrated (not all willingly) between the newly created nations. Refugee camps were established in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere to house this mass migration. Yet today, while tens of thousands of people still live in the Jabalya refugee camp, as far as I’ve been able to determine, none of the refugee camps established to deal with refugees following the Indian partition still exist. Oh, yes, there are refugee camps in Pakistan (for refugees from Afghanistan) and India (mostly housing Rohingya refugees), but not for refugees from the 1947 partition and its aftermath. Those refugee populations were incorporated into the population of the countries in which the refugees took shelter. The same can be said about virtually every other conflict between 1947 and the present day. Refugees often begin in refugee camps administered by the United Nations (but not by the same UN agency that administers Palestinian refugee camps) but are then resettled or absorbed into the population of the country in which they sought shelter.

But not in Gaza (or the West Bank). The refugees in the Jabalya camp were not incorporated into the Egyptian population, even though Egypt controlled Gaza. Nor was much of an effort made to create a permanent status for those refugees. Instead, they continued to live in a refugee camp as refugees, as did their children and the generations that followed (that descendants of refugees are considered, themselves, to be refugees, is the rule only with regard to Palestinians; no other descendants of refugees from any other conflict continue to be classified as “refugees”). In 1967, following the Six Day Way, Gaza fell under Israel’s control. However, unlike other areas (like East Jerusalem and the Golan), Israel did not annex Gaza. So, I suppose, the question might be why Israel didn’t try to build a more permanent form of shelter and housing to replace Jabalya during the period from 1967 through 1993 when Israel ceded local administrative control in Gaza to the Palestinian authority. And I suppose that’s a fair question. Though because Gaza was not annexed into Israel, there was no duty incumbent on Israel to incorporate the population of Gaza, refugee or otherwise, into the general population of Israel. But one might also inquire why UNRWA – which operated the camp (and still does) – didn’t do more to move the residents of the camp into a more stable and permanent situation. The same query should be applied to Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Jordan. And query what, if any, success Israel might have had in efforts to “resettle” Palestinians in Gaza, had it tried. Of course, the next question is why the Palestinian Authority from and after 1993 didn’t do anything to close the refugee camp and why Hamas has continued that inaction since taking over control of Gaza in 2009. From 1948 – 1967 and then from 1993 to today, Palestinian “refugees” have continued to live in refugee camps notwithstanding that those camps are in an area governed by either an Arab country or a Palestinian governing body.

It’s worth noting that following the 1948 War, there was also enormous movement of Jews from throughout the Arab world and North Africa to Israel. Similarly, beginning in the 1980s, there have been mass migrations of Jews to Israel from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union, many of whom had to flee from their homelands due to violence or other forms of persecution. Yet none of those hundreds of thousands (or more) of people still live in refugee camps in Israel.

Countries throughout the world, including the United States (which is the largest single donor country) provide literally billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians. And yet tens of thousands of people still live in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank. Could it be that the Palestinians chose to use the money either for weapons (Hamas) or other corrupt purposes (the Palestinian Authority)? Note that it is estimated that when in he died in 2004, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had a net worth of over a billion dollars! Hmm. Where did that money all come from and what was it supposed to be used for?

Rather than use donor funds for their intended purposes, Arafat regularly diverted money to his own accounts. It is amazing that some U.S. officials still see the Palestinian Authority as a partner even after U.S. congressional records revealed authenticated PLO papers signed by Arafat in which he instructed his staff to divert donors’ money to projects benefiting himself, his family, and his associates.

Arafat's Swiss Bank Account. Current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is estimated to have a net worth in excess of one hundred million dollars. According to Israel: “Hamas leaders net worth: Abu Marzuk $3 billion [¶] Khaled Mashal $4 billion [¶] Ismail Haniyet $4 billion [¶] Hamas' annual turnover $1 billion.” And note that none of those Hamas leaders live in Gaza. How many houses (even with bomb shelters!), how much clean water, how much infrastructure, could have been built in Gaza with those billions? Keep in mind that just a few days ago, a Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official told Russia Today that “We have built the tunnels to protect ourselves from getting targeted and killed. These are meant to protect us from the airplanes” and that “It is the responsibility of the UN to provide [the Palestinians] with all the services as long as they are under occupation.” In other words, it is not the responsibility of Hamas to care for the people it governs or to use the money that it receives for their benefit.

I wonder. Is it possible that the leaders of Hamas (and the Palestinian Authority before them) don’t really care about the well-being of the Palestinian people, at least not to the extent that doing so would prevent them from lining their own pockets (or buying more rockets)? More importantly, is it possible that from a political or realpolitik perspective, there is a sort of perverse value in having Palestinians continue living in refugee camps? Just think of the visceral reaction that you probably had when you heard that Israel had bombed a refugee camp; somehow, that sounds so much worse that bombing a town, doesn’t it? Query further the attitudes and anger (or despair) that one can and should expect from people who have been living in refugee camps (along with several generations of ancestors) for seventy-five years at least in large part because their own leaders pocketed the money and made no effort to help them. It’s likely to breed a sort of resentment and anger that is easily targeted by those same corrupt leaders toward an external enemy instead of, perhaps, at those in leadership positions who have apparently chosen to keep those people in refugee camps.

One other point worth noting (though somewhat off-topic) for those who claim that Israel’s actions amount to a genocide against Palestinians. According to the Preliminary Results report referenced above, the Palestinian population has not been showing the sort of decline that might be expected were ethnic cleansing, let alone a genocide, occurring. According to page 11 of that report, the total population of the West Bank and Gaza increased over sixty-five percent (65%) in just twenty years!

Year	Population	% Increase	Cumulative % Increase
1997	2,895,683	–	–
2007	3,767,549	30.11%	–
2017	4,780,978	26.9%	65.11%

The current international definition of genocide (from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) provides that “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” (Emphasis added.) Now, consider Israel’s actions largely designed to protect its own population (approximately 20% of which are Muslim and Christian Palestinians) taking note, in particular, of the increase in the growth of the Palestinian population, and ask yourself whether Israel’s actions really constitute genocide. Has Israel really been acting “with intent to destroy … a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”? By contrast, consider the actions (and statements in support of those actions) of Hamas, which include trying to murder the populations of entire kibbutzim and towns which is, itself, in furtherance of the stated goal of not only eliminating Israel but also of killing Jews. Who, then, is actually committing genocide?

Next time you hear people marching, Palestinians flags waving above their heads, to the chant of “From the river, to the sea, Palestine will be free,” think about how anybody could chant that they want a genocide and how any of us (or our institutions, like universities) could tolerate chants demanding a genocide.

Reflections on Yet Another War Between Israel and Hamas

This blog has been on hiatus for several years (for reasons that I’ll one day discuss in more depth), but the current situation in Israel has motivated me to lift my head out of my burrow, at least for the moment. I don’t want to rehash (or completely rehash…) the many ideas that I’ve talked about, often at length, between 2008 and 2017. Look up the Israel and Anti-Semitism labels on this blog and you’ll find plenty of articles, many of which remain sadly relevant today. (Note that in recent years, I’ve begun using the more modern “antisemitism” in place of the hyphenated “anti-Semitism” but that label has been in use for a long time.) However, there are a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head over the last few days and this blog seems to be the perfect outlet.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I think it is possible to support Israel and the right of Palestinians to live in peace, with dignity, and the right to self-determination. These are not competing views. I believe in that a two-state solution is the only viable solution, but that it will take a lot of work – by both parties – to find the courage, common ground, and trust to make that happen.

Justification

First, one of the recurring themes that I’ve heard from those who oppose Israel and/or support the Palestinians generally or Hamas in particular is that Hamas’ actions are justified because Israel is an occupying colonial power that has been waging war on the indigenous people of the region (or some variation on that theme). This view (let’s call it the “Historical Justification” worldview) has several serious flaws (some of which I’ve addressed in the past), but I’m not going to use this time to rehash history or the reality of who Israelis are (with the exception of a brief discussion of the point, below) or whether the Arab inhabitants are “more” indigenous than the Jewish population (made up of European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Jews from many other ethnic backgrounds). Rather, I want to look at the hypocrisy of those who take espouse Historical Justification or what that position might really mean if equitably applied. So, solely for the sake of argument, let’s presume that Historical Justification is correct and agree arguendo that Israel is an occupying colonial power, that Israel has “waged war” on the Palestinians and in so doing has deprived them of self-determination and the ability to live share the same human rights as others (though it may be worth asking whether the human rights Palestinians desire – and are absolutely entitled to – are extended to the populations of other Arab and Muslim countries…). Again, I’m agreeing to the Historical Justification worldview solely for the purpose of argument and discussion.

I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that those who do advocate Historical Justification do so in good faith and would agree that a similar framework for Historical Justification should apply not only to Palestinians but also to other groups who are “oppressed” by “occupying colonial powers”. Thus, I take it, that those who condone the actions of Hamas because of Historical Justification would also condone Native Americans bombing busses in Minneapolis, firing rockets at Tulsa, and kidnapping babies from Phoenix, right? No? Please explain, with specificity, what is worse about the Palestinian situation than the Native American experience (from colonization to conquest to genocide to reservations and residence schools to loss of language to forced sterilization to broken treaties and on and on and on…) and then tell me why Palestinian use of force against a civilian population is acceptable but Native American use of force against America (or Canada) is not. When you’ve completed that assignment, please take a step back and apply the same rationale to other ethnic, cultural, or religious groups all across the globe who believe that they are oppressed or lacking in self-determination. Aboriginal Australians? Basque and Catalan people in Spain? Tibetans? Muslims in India or China? I’ll wait. And before you answer with something like “because Israel drops bombs on Palestinians” or builds a security fence, query whether violence directed towards Israel and Israelis plays any role in that aspect of Israel’s conduct.

Proportionality

I’ve written extensively in the past about the idea of a “proportionate response” and what exactly that means (for example, see What Is a “Proportionate Response” to Terror? (Repost) and Again, I Ask: How Should Israel Respond). Feel free to go back and look at those posts again and then consider how the idea of proportionality applies to the current situation. What is the proportionate response to an armed incursion that was directed at a civilian population and to whom apparently no quarter was given. Tossing grenades into bomb shelters? Check. Dismembering babies? Check. [Note: I recognize at the time of writing that there is some question as whether babies were actually dismembered or just burned and shot from point-blank range.] Kidnapping women and children and elderly Holocaust survivors? Check, check, and check. Taking refuge, hiding munitions, and then firing rockets from heavily populated areas where civilians have no choice but to act as human shields? Again, check. So, again I ask, how should Israel respond and what is the proportionate response? Should Hamas essentially benefit from hiding in and acting from heavily-populated civilian areas? Should Hamas benefit from hiding weapons in schools, from firing rockets from schools, from digging tunnels under schools? If so, what will stop this from happening again and again and again. Is Israel supposed to just shrug its collective shoulders and so, “Oh, well, nothing we can do other than build better bomb shelters or flee from our homes and return to Ukraine and Iran?” and then just await the next barrage of rockets, paragliders, and suicidal jihadis? Try telling that to the parents whose children were dismembered, to the husbands and wives whose spouses are currently being held somewhere in Gaza, to the residents of villages and kibbutzim that no longer exist. Or is Israel free to take such military action as may be necessary to once and for all eliminate Hamas as an effective fighting force?

After writing the initial draft of the preceding paragraph (news keeps happening…), I came across a quotation from Israel’s President Isaac Herzog who spoke about proportionality during a press briefing:

Herzog also got visibly agitated when responding to a similar question at the same briefing. Matt Frei, from UK broadcaster Channel 4, asked the Israeli president whether Israel is holding ordinary Palestinians in Gaza responsible for not removing Hamas. “With all due respect, if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen, and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?” Herzog retorted. “That’s the situation. These missiles are there. These missiles are launched, the button is pressed, the missile comes up from a kitchen onto my children,” he continued.

(Israel’s president says it is abiding by international law, when asked by CNN about war crime accusations, internal paragraph breaks omitted; story apparently no longer available because it was part of a running “live” news ticker. The quotation can be found elsewhere.)

Agency

I find it troubling that while everyone feels bad for the innocent in Gaza (as we should), there is no assignment of agency to any of the population of Gaza for any acts committed in the name of Islam, the Palestinians, or Gazans, as if that population plays no role whatsoever in Hamas’ actions, strength, or role within Gaza. Contrast, for example, how Jews – even across the globe (not just Israelis) are blamed for the actions taken by Israel.

Do Gazan mothers encourage their sons to join Hamas and praise them when they do join Hamas or do those mothers try to convince their sons to stay away from Hamas and find productive ways to work toward peace? Do international organizations staffed by Gazans (UNRWA among others) take affirmative actions – including telling their parent organizations – about Hamas weapons caches in or around their facilities or do they keep their mouths closed (see further discussion on this below)? Do Gazans push for Hamas, as the de facto ruling power, to build bomb shelters and other infrastructure to improve life in Gaza or do they just look the other way when Hamas uses donor funds to buy weapons, dig tunnels, and leave the civilian population in squalor? Do Gazans spend their days training for war or working to improve their own living conditions and infrastructure? Why hasn’t Hamas built its own water desalinization plant? Do Gazans march in the streets to demand more freedom from Hamas, to have elections, to engage in dialogue with Israel or do they sit by and allow Gaza to be run by a terrorist organization and willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields each time Hamas elects to open new hostilities? Do Gazans not aligned with Hamas and/or who want to live in a better environment, perhaps with peace as a realistic hope, have any obligation to make even minimal efforts to bring those ideas to fruition? Think about it: The people of Gaza are willing send their children off to die in order to “free Palestine” from “Zionist control”. They’re willing to die to kill Jews. They are willing to die to free Palestine but don’t seem willing to die to free Gaza from Hamas.

When Israel told Palestinians in northern Gaza to relocated to southern Gaza (where there is a fair amount of open space and farmland), even dropping leaflets telling Palestinians where to go and where not to be, did Hamas arrange for an evacuation of its citizens out of Gaza City? Of course not. Instead, Hamas told the people of Gaza City not to follow the Israeli instructions; Hamas told people to stay in Gaza City. Why do you suppose Hamas would rather that people stay in Gaza City rather than relocate to southern Gaza? Hmm. Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to target terrorist infrastructure, weapons caches, rocket launch sites? Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to engage in targeted assaults aimed at rescuing hostages? Could it be that Hamas knows the value of using the civilian as human shields? I saw a video of a woman in Gaza complaining about the Israeli airstrikes and noting that Gaza had no early warning system (air raid sirens) or bomb shelters. Why, do you suppose, Hamas has not built an early warning system or bomb shelters? Israel is castigated for inflicting “collective punishment” on the Palestinians of Gaza yet no similar castigation seems to be aimed at Hamas for using the entire population of Gaza as human shields. Collective punishment vs. collective sacrifice?

Language

Another thing that has been forefront on my mind is the language that has been used to describe aspects of the current conflict. As you listen to or read about what’s happening, pay attention to the vocabulary both used and unsaid. For example, are the members of Hamas who shot concert-goers at point-blank range, who dismembered babies (or at least burned and shot them at close range), who threw grenades into bomb shelters, and who kidnapped women, children, and the elderly referred to as “militants” or “terrorists”? For example:

The BBC has defended its decision not to describe Hamas militants as “terrorists” in coverage of the recent attacks in Israel. UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the policy is “verging on disgraceful”. A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else. Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said “calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides”. But Mr Shapps said the BBC needs to locate its “moral compass … I actually think it is verging on disgraceful, this idea that there is some sort of equivalence, and they'll always say, well there’s two sides,” he told LBC.

BBC defends policy not to call Hamas ‘terrorists’ after criticism.

I don’t know about you, but to me there is an important distinction between a militant and a terrorist (and if there wasn’t, why would the BBC have a policy on the wording?). Pay attention to which word is used and by whom. Furthermore, in all of the discussions regarding Hamas’ actions, in particular the kidnapping of Israeli (and non-Israeli!) civilians and transferring them back to Gaza, there is a great deal of contempt being expressed – appropriately so – but how often have you heard those actions actually described as “war crimes”? The Geneva Conventions specifically identifies the taking of hostages as a war crime. I’m not talking about soldiers who may be captured and who are deemed “prisoners of war” (but for whom specific protections are mandated, such as from mistreatment, yet we’ve seen video of captured Israelis being beaten by their captors or even Gazan civilians), but soldiers appear to be a small percentage of the hostages taken by Hamas. And now Hamas is threatening not only to kill hostages (more on that in a moment) but to even do so in the brutal manner “popularized” by ISIS and to broadcast the executions on social media. Israeli parents are being warned to keep their children off of social media for fear that their children may inadvertently see Hamas commit war crimes and show them to the world. Ask yourself why, even as Hamas’ actions are being condemned, they are not being explicitly labeled as war crimes.

Another interesting word choice that I came across comes from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), headquartered in a suburb of Indianapolis. ISNA published a letter on Twitter (sorry, but I refuse to call it X), but oddly not on its website, that largely blames Israel for the violence and demands that the United States stop its “one-sided and unconditional support for Israel.” No great surprise there. The parts of the letter that I found interesting were the opening where ISNA expresses deep sadness for the “recent outbreak of war and violence in the Holy Land and Gaza” before going on to express solidarity with their “brothers and sisters in Palestine” and conclusion where ISNA calls on “all parties and governments around the world to exert pressure on Israel to cease its violence and war on the Palestinian people.” It’s not surprising that ISNA puts all of the blame on Israel. But, at least according to ISNA, Hamas didn’t attack Israel and Israeli citizens. Nope. Instead, in ISNA’s worldview (and you’ll see this sort of language frequently), there was simply an “outbreak” of war. You know, everyone was sitting around having a lazy Saturday morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, war and violence just broke out, the same way a thunderstorm or an earthquake might. In ISNA’s worldview, no blame is assigned to Hamas for actually – well, anything. Israel is to blame for all sorts of wrongs and because of those wrongs, war and violence just … happened. Note further where ISNA thinks that the war broke out. Yes, in Gaza, but not in Israel; rather, according to ISNA war broke out in the “Holy Land”. Apparently, ISNA can’t bring itself to acknowledge that the land on the other side of the Gazan border belongs to Israel and was included as a part of Israel as far back as the UN Partition Plan in 1947. Which of course begs the question when ISNA states that it expresses solidarity with its “brothers and sisters in Palestine”. What, precisely, does ISNA mean when it says “in Palestine”? Is ISNA expressing solidarity only with its Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank? Or is it also expressing solidarity with Muslims (what about Arab Christians?) who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens? Are they included or excluded from that expression of solidarity with those “in Palestine”? If they’re included, that would appear to suggest that ISNA is denying the very existence of Israel. Now, consider this while remembering that the Hamas emblem depicts all of “Palestine” rather than the region divided into two states: Israel and Palestine.

Oh, and the swords just scream “peace” don’t they?

Threats

Do you think that any mosques or Islamic centers in America are worried that they might be attacked by angry Jews? Are supporters of Hamas or the Palestinians worried that they’ll be attacked by a mob of Jews as they walk down the street or take their children to school? Yet virtually every Jewish installation across the country has had to increase security (and security at Jewish facilities has already been dramatically increased after all of the attacks perpetrated in recent years including the Tree of Life massacre in Pittsburgh and the 2022 hostage-taking at a synagogue near Dallas by a Muslim man). Once again, to quote Arsenio Hall, “things that make you go hmmm.” And just a few hours ago, fear began to spread online after the former head of Hamas appeared to call for – well, it’s unclear exactly what he called for and whether it’s limited to the Middle East or across the world. But many are interpreting his statements as a call for terrorism or violent demonstrations. Can you imagine if the head of a Jewish organization called on Jews to attack mosques? No. You can’t. Because it doesn’t happen. But my daughter did call to ask me if she was safe in the large American city where she now resides.

Threats and Warnings

Beyond kidnapping civilians and taking them across the border back to Gaza, “The spokesman for Hamas’s military wing, Abu Obeida, said the group would execute a civilian hostage every time an airstrike hit Gazans ‘in their homes without warning.’” Israel Orders ‘Complete Siege’ of Gaza and Hamas Threatens to Kill Hostages. Did you notice anything interesting or unusual about that threat? Hamas didn’t threaten to execute a hostage for each airstrike; rather, the threat was limited to airstrikes that hit Gazans “in their homes without warning”. A few things. First, does Hamas give warnings to Israelis before rockets rain down? I believe that the general warning to civilians in Ashkelon a few days ago was a first. Did Hamas warn people at the open air festival or having breakfast in their homes on the kibbutzim? And, I suppose, you could read that threat as explicitly exempting Israeli airstrikes that either: (a) don’t hit homes; or (b) for which a warning is provided. Right? Remember as I’ve discussed previously, in the past Israel has directly warned occupants of buildings that are being targeted for airstrikes:

Israel often tries to warn civilians of an impending attack. Israel will often drop leaflets warning civilians to avoid a particular location because it will be targeted. And prior to targeting certain buildings, Israel has begun using a “door knock” or “roof knock” warning. Israel launches a non-explosive missile at the building to warn those who might be hanging around (or acting as human shields) that a more serious attack is imminent. Even the United Nations (not known as a friend of Israel) recognized that “In most cases, prior to the attacks, residents have been warned to leave, either via phone calls by the Israel military or by the firing of warning missiles.

Gaza

I’ve also heard repeated, almost ad nauseum, that Gaza is the “most densely populated area” in the ___ (fill in the blank; I’ve heard “region,” “Middle East,” and even “World”). Much of the reporting is likely to give the impression that Gaza is densely populated from north to south, east to west, with barely any room to breathe. However, like so much else, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. First check out the following map of population density in Gaza:

(From Maps show the extreme population density in Gaza). Only the area in purple is densely populated (and the darker the purple, the denser the area). Another map from the same article is also instructive:

The article also includes a comparison of the density of Gaza City (the darkest purple at the northern end of Gaza) with other cities: Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, and Washington.

But why not compare Gaza City to any of the 235 (!) urban areas (from the same source) that are denser than Gaza City (including Jerusalem (!), Istanbul, Cairo, Seoul, Mexico City, Berlin, and New York City)? See db-worldua.pdf (demographia.com) (Schedule 4 beginning on page 61). But I guess providing closer comparisons or examples from within the region doesn’t lend itself to the propaganda point quite as well.

Putin

Another thing that caught my attention and made me laugh (in that sort of morbid laughter that horrible situations sometimes require):

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday urged “both” sides in the fighting between Israel and Hamas to “minimize or reduce to zero” civilian casualties. Speaking from Moscow on the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Putin suggested the lack of a two-state solution has led to the current “explosion of violence,” saying, “Israel, as we know, was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…. We understand that the bitterness on both sides is very great, but no matter what the level of bitterness on both sides is, we still need to strive to minimize or reduce to zero losses among the civilian population, among women, children and the elderly,” Putin said. “If men decided to fight among themselves, let them fight among themselves. Leave children and women alone,” he added.

Putin calls to ‘minimize or reduce to zero’ civilian casualties in expanding conflict (internal paragraph breaks omitted). This caught my attention for two reasons. First, with regard to Putin’s suggestion that women and children should be left alone and that civilian casualties should be minimized or reduced to zero, one has to wonder whether Putin: (a) has looked at the civilian casualties caused by his military’s targeting of civilians in Ukraine (estimated at 9,806 as of October 8, 2023, including 560 children [Ukraine: Civilians endure ‘unbearable’ toll amid ‘unrelenting’ attacks], (b) is aware of the continued war crimes committed by his military as they kidnap Ukrainian children and transfer them to Russia (Deportation, Treatment of Ukraine’s Children by Russian Federations Takes Centre Stage by Many Delegates at Security Council Briefing), and/or (c) is familiar with the word “hypocrite”. But perhaps more troubling is Putin’s attempt to rewrite history (or his unfamiliarity with actual history). Putin claims that “Israel … was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…”. But we have to remember that the United Nations Partition Plan created both a Jewish and Arab state. The Jews immediately accepted the plan and announced the creation of Israel. The Arabs rejected the plan and attacked. So if “Palestine … was never created,” who is to blame? I bet I can guess who most people will blame.

Black Lives Matter

I want to touch on something that may be a little more controversial, but seems important. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, American Jewry was front and center advocating for the Black community. More than six hundred Jewish groups signed and published a letter supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, just as Jews had been actively involved in the civil rights movement, including being among the founders of the NAACP and the Freedom Riders to the south in the 1960s. The bond between Jews and the Black community has a long and vibrant history. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Yet, even with all of that, it seems that some Black civil rights groups have become, if not fully antisemitic, at least anti-Zionist and/or supporters of the Palestinians (rather than supporters of a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict). Now, in the wake of the recent attack by Hamas, some groups associated with Black Lives Matter appear to have amended a caveat to their view. Recall the anger when those on the right suggested that saying “Black lives matter” meant that “White lives don’t matter”? “Of course,” the Black community (and other communities of good will), answered, “all lives matter, but we’re not talking about all lives, we’re talking specifically about Black lives that don’t seem to matter to some.” Well, now it seems as if some in the Black Lives Matter community are amending that view to something more like “all lives matter … except Jewish lives.” How else to explain posts like this from a Black Lives Matter group:

Even when BLMChicago took down the post (quietly and under pressure) and then (finally) tried to walk it back, the best that they could come up with was (emojis of Palestinian flag and colors omitted):

Yesterday we sent out msgs that we aren’t proud of. We stand with Palestine & the people who will do what they must to live free. Our hearts are with, the grieving mothers, those rescuing babies from rubble, who are in danger of being wiped out completely

No condemnation of Hamas or the slaughter or kidnapping; no hope for a mutual peace. Just recognition of the plight of Palestinians and a green light for them to “do what they must to live free”. I can’t help but wonder if BLMChicago knows that the Jewish population of Israel includes about 133,000 Black Ethiopians (around 2% of the population) who were rescued from Ethiopia by Israel or that approximately 45% of Israel’s Jewish population is comprised of people of color (Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East and North Africa). So do groups like BLMChicago believe that Black lives (or the lives of people of color) in Israel don’t matter or that they matter, but just not as much as Palestinian lives?

Condemnation of Israeli civilians being slaughtered by Hamas should be the end of a sentence; it shouldn’t be followed with “but what about…” Condemning the actions of Hamas does not mean that Israel actions or responses are being condoned or that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives.

UNWRA

One more quick point that I want to make on a subject that I kept meaning to discuss in more depth but never got around to (and which I alluded to above): UNRWA. As you follow coverage of the conflict, you’ll likely see or hear references to UNRWA (pronounced “un-ra”), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is the United Nations organization created to address Palestinian refugees after the 1948 War and administer Palestinian welfare efforts. Yes, UNRWA remains actively involved in Palestinian lives seventy-three years after it began operations in 1950. Among other functions, UNRWA operates schools in Gaza; schools where Hamas has been caught hiding and firing rockets and building tunnels and which uses textbooks that incite violence. UNWRA has also been caught employing staffers who post antisemitic messages on social media. But, perhaps, the craziest part of all of this is that UNRWA exists solely for the relief and works of Palestinians. It has no part to play with regard to Jews who became refugees after the 1948 War. More importantly, all other refugees in the world come under the auspices of the UNHCR (United National High Commission for Refugees) which has a very, very different definition for “refugee” than the definition used by UNRWA (the UNHCR definition is far narrower and doesn’t generally include descendants of a person who fled conflict). Thus, the literally millions of refugees of wars across the globe after 1948 (estimated to be as many as 35 million by Refuge Point) are subject to a far more restrictive and limited regime than the Palestinians. (If the definition of “refuge” applied to Palestinians were expanded to other conflicts, my children and I might be able to identify ourselves as refugees from Ukraine or Poland.) Yet in virtually none of those other wars are people living in refugee camps decades and decades after the cessation of principal hostilities. But in Gaza and the West Bank (and Jordan and Lebanon), refugee camps exist to this day, most administered by UNRWA. Why haven’t those people forced the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Jordanian and Lebanese governments to build the necessary infrastructure to dismantle the refugee camps or to take over providing and schooling these “refugees” in lieu of the United Nations?

And just for a note of comparison, when Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia massacred 460 – 3,500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, approximately 400,000 Israelis protested in Tel Aviv to demonstrate anger at the massacre and demand an investigation into Israel’s role and responsibility. And even today, Israel is still struggling with and coming to terms with those events as part of a inward-looking reflection not too dissimilar to that engaged in by Americans during and after Vietnam or now in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I haven’t seen Palestinians protesting to demonstrate anger at Hamas’ actions.

Conclusion

I’m sure that I’ll have many more thoughts and much more to say over the next days, weeks, and months. Whether I say it here or not remains to be seen. I will acknowledge, in advance, that some of my language in this post may not be as precise as it should be; anger and fear are emotions that can overwhelm caution and care. As always, I welcome discourse on the subject, but I’m not likely to respond favorably to those who choose simply to insult me, call me names, threaten me, and so forth. But I am very willing to engage in good faith discussions on solutions and ways to work toward peace.

Still Thinking About Supporting the Green Party? Meet the Party’s Nominee for Vice President

I know that some people on the left don’t like Hillary Clinton. I’d generally argue that these people are essentially rewarding the right wing for its efforts at character assassination over the last 20 or more years and accepting as truth the vast panoply of lies and outright conspiracies directed at Clinton. That isn’t to say that she is a perfect person or perfect candidate; she isn’t. But then who is? Sadly, some people don’t want to engage in actual conversation and dialogue about Clinton and have, instead, elected to simply reject her..

However, those on the left who reject Clinton now have a choice to make. If they can’t bring themselves to vote for her, then who can they vote for? My suspicion (hope?) is that few people on the left of the political spectrum who choose not to vote for Clinton would cast a vote for Donald Trump. And I doubt that many of those people would vote for a libertarian candidate either (at least not once they learn about more about the libertarian’s positions beyond legalization of marijuana). So that leaves Jill Stein and the Green Party.

I’m going to take a slightly different approach to discussing that last option. Today, I’m not going to discuss why Jill Stein or the Green Party aren’t really viable. I’m not going to discuss how a vote for a third party can, in essence, be viewed as a vote for Trump. And I’m not going to delve into the positions advocated by Stein or the Green Party (including fears about vaccines or WiFi). Instead, I’m going to focus on one decision made by Stein to demonstrate just how bad a vote for the Green Party would be.

It is often said that the first important decision that a Presidential candidate makes is the selection of a running mate. After all, if the President dies or is otherwise incapable of executing the duties of President, then the Vice President takes over. One would presume that the President would select a Vice President whose judgment and advice the President would seek and value. So, with those concepts in mind, let’s meet Jill Stein’s choice to be the Green Party’s candidate for Vice President: Ajamu Baraka.

So what does Baraka have to say about certain important issues? What sort of advice might be offer President Stein? What policies would he pursue were he to become President?

As a starting point, try this paragraph from an essay of Baraka’s that can only be described as being hostile (and I’m being charitable here) to the leftist foreign policy ideas expressed by Bernie Sanders (emphasis added):

It means that if today leftists in the U.S. can find a way to reconcile the suffering of the people of Yemen and Gaza and all of occupied Palestine for the greater good of electing Sanders, tomorrow my life and the movement that I am a part of that is committed to fighting this corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity called the United States, can be labeled as enemies of the state and subjected to brutal repression with the same level of silence from these leftists.

It’s worth noting that the essay was published in Counterpunch, a far left, anti-Israel, conspiracy-focused website that has been known to publish essays from people who are not just anti-Zionist, but also outright anti-Semites (but that is a topic for another day).* Anyway, go back and read that paragraph again. Then ask yourself if someone who thinks that the United States is a “corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity” should really be Vice President of the United States. Ask yourself whether someone who believes that, essentially, anyone to the right of his extremely far left position on the political spectrum (from Bernie Sanders and his supporters rightward) would label Baraka and his “movement” as “enemies of the state”? Does he really believe that those who harbor opposition views in America are subject to “brutal repression”? If so, how is that he is on the ticket to be Vice President and not in jail, Guantanamo, or dead in a ditch?

Or perhaps we should consider that Baraka has an essay in the book Another French False Flag?: Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernardino edited by Kevin J. Barrett, a noted anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 “truther” (who also blames Israel for the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando along with virtually every other evil in the world). As you can tell from the title, Barrett’s book takes the position that many of the terrorist attacks that we’ve witnessed in recent years were not actually perpetrated by the Islamic terrorists upon whom blame has been leveled. Besides the essay from Baraka, Barrett’s book also includes essays by authors such as noted anti-Semites Gilad Atzmon and Ken O’Keefe (who once made a video called “Hitler was Right” [to which I obviously will not link]). To be fair, Baraka claims that he didn’t know which other authors or views Barrett would include in the book:

When Kevin Barrett, someone who has interviewed me in the past, contacted me to ask if he could include my piece in a compilation on the Paris Attacks, I didn’t see any problem with it,” Baraka said in a statement to Gawker in which he stridently disavowed Holocaust denial. “I didn’t inquire as to the other authors and don’t know much about some of them or their positions on various issues. I stand by everything I wrote in that article and would be happy to discuss the details.”

But… really? You agree to allow your essay to be included in a book being edited by someone you know takes controversial positions, but don’t ask what other essays will be included alongside yours? Hmm. I wonder if Baraka even bothered to learn the title of Barrett’s book; it isn’t exactly subtle. I sure hope that as Vice President, Baraka would bring that attention to detail to the job. Oh, and the essay by Baraka that was included in Barrett’s book should also give you an idea of Baraka’s worldview: The Paris Attacks and the White Lives Matter Movement (originally published in Counterpunch).

Recall that Baraka claimed not to know about the positions of other authors, suggesting that Barrett was simply someone who had interviewed him in the past. Hmm. Well, given the tenor of Barrett’s radio program (on which Baraka has apparently appeared more than once) and the sorts of discussions that they’ve had, it seems unlikely that Baraka would be unaware of the point of view that Barrett and those included in his book might offer. Witness, for example, this exchange (about the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine a few years ago):

“What do you think of this plane — Malaysian plane shootdown?” Barrett asks. “The U.S. media is putting out the possibilities of this being done by the Russians or by the pro-Russian Ukrainians, but President Putin’s plane was flying through there shortly before this plane was shot down—it looks like Putin’s plane may have been targeted. If so, obviously that wouldn’t have been done by the Russians or pro-Russian separatists quote unquote, that would have been done by the Kiev Zio-Nazi government. Which is what it is—these Zionist Jewish oligarchs, billionaire criminal dons, are funding Nazi street thugs. These are the people who overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government of Ukraine and created a fascist junta, and they are the ones who would be the suspects, at least in my opinion — somebody shooting at Putin’s plane, and yet the media doesn’t even raise that as a possibility.”

Baraka immediately engages with the idea and agrees.

“And when it’s raised, it’s raised as a conspiracy,” Baraka responded. “I think that this is a — I was trying to find the citation, I remember reading, I can’t remember who it was, someone wrote about three weeks ago that we should expect false flag, a major false flag operation in eastern Ukraine that’s going to be blamed on the Russians. And that’s exactly what has happened.”

Note that not only does Baraka appear to agree with the notion of a “false flag” attack being behind the downing of the aircraft, but he doesn’t challenge Barrett’s claim that the Ukrainian government was a “Zio-Nazi” government comprised of “Zionist Jewish oligarchs … funding Nazi street thugs” who created a “fascist junta”. (For those who are blissfully unaware, the shorthand “Zio” is a epithet used mostly on the far left to describe Israelis, Zionists, and, often, Jews.) Note further that both Barrett and Baraka (like Donald Trump…) seem to be taking the side of Russia its dispute with Ukraine.

Baraka views President Obama as an “Uncle Tom President”. He described President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch as “black petit-bourgeoisie who have become the living embodiments of the partial success of the state’s attempt to colonize the consciousness of Africans/black people”. Baraka even tears into Bernie Sanders and his supporters claiming that Sanders promises “continued war crimes from the sky with drone strikes and Saudi led terror in support of the Western imperial project” and that Sander’s program is a “tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy”. Baraka does, at least, attempt to soften these attacks by noting that his criticisms are “not to suggest that everyone who might find a way to support Sanders is a closet racist and supporter of imperialism”. No, not everyone…

Baraka is also, apparently, a Boko Haram “truther”, claiming among other things that the number of schoolgirls kidnapped by the group had been inflated and that the US didn’t have real humanitarian concerns for the plight of those schoolgirls; instead, he apparently claimed that the US was interested in Nigeria only as a means to Nigerian oil. Of course given that his entire worldview seems to come from a lens of the evil, white American empire looking for ways to subjugate or at least tolerate the destruction of people of color, then we shouldn’t be too surprised, should we?

I was also not surprised to learn that Baraka opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership (the TPP). It faces strong criticism from both the far left and the far right (and pockets in between). Criticism of the TPP in the US has largely focused on whether it would be good for Americans generally and American jobs in particular. Baraka approaches the issue from a slightly different perspective (emphasis added):

The TPP is a weapon to maintain U.S. global hegemony by denying the fundamental economic, social and cultural rights of millions of people in order to benefit a parasitic white minority ruling class in the U.S. And for that fact alone, African Americans and all people of conscience should opposed [sic] it.

A “parasitic white minority ruling class in the U.S.”? Yep, this man should be Vice President, shouldn’t he?

Baraka described the “Je Suis Charlie” rallying cry that followed the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine (and a Jewish market) as “an arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy”. Really.

I’m often critical of those on the right who claim that the “real racists” are African Americans (or Latinos) who raise the issue of race. I’m sympathetic to the notion of the need to recognize so-called “white privilege”. And, while I don’t think that racism is to blame for everything, I do think that racism is an important issue that needs to be addressed. However, the way Baraka seems to see everything through race-tinged lenses only serves to feed the view from that right that racism emanates from minority communities. His racism and racist rhetoric weakens efforts by those who desire to engage in real discussion and dialogue on the problems of racism and on the problems caused by racism. In other words, Baraka’s rhetoric will not lead to lessening of racism or improve the lives African Americans or other people of color at home or abroad; he is just pouring jet fuel on the fire.

Oh, and Baraka thinks that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has legitimacy as a democratically elected leader. He also argues that the story being told about the civil war in Syria is propaganda designed to conceal the truth about the surrender of Syria’s “national sovereignty to the geo-strategic interests of the U.S. and its colonial allies in Europe and Israel.”

Finally, one last issue on which Baraka has been quite vocal. I know that many readers who are thinking about voting for the Green Party may be critics of Israel (and I’m sure you view yourselves only as anti-Zionists and not as anti-Semites, but that is a discussion for another day). So calling out some of Baraka’s views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not matter much to you. But for my readers who do support Israel and its right to exist as a democratic Jewish state within safe and secure borders, a quick summation of Baraka’s views on Israel are worthwhile. These views can be readily summarized by the findings of the African Heritage Delegation to Palestine/Israel (from April 2015; and note that the group renamed itself Zaynah Hindi African Heritage Delegation “in recognition of and in solidarity with our delegation’s co-leader, a Palestinian American”) on which Baraka participated.** Among that group’s findings (after meeting with early leaders of the Israeli Black Panther party, which I must admit, I didn’t know existed):

• Israeli policy of settlement expansion amounts to ethnic cleansing and 21st century colonialism.
• We condemn the campaign Israel’s government has waged to court black religious and political support and call on the Black community to give unconditional support and solidarity to Palestinian Liberation.
• The global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement is an essential tool in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.
• We call on activists and non-activists alike to join initiatives in their communities that support and work in solidarity with Palestinian resistance movements.

(Emphasis added.) There’s more, both from the Delegation and from Baraka in his other writings, but that should give you a good idea. Note that the phrase “resistance movements” is often used to describe … terrorists. You know, like Hamas, which is the acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”. In other words, Baraka signed a statement calling for support for and work in solidary with terrorist groups. And, if you’re curious, I did come across a statement by Baraka equating Israeli treatment of Palestinians in Gaza as a form of genocide.

Yep, he would make a great Vice President. Before casting a ballot for the Green Party, think about Baraka’s views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ask whether he would be good for those on either side of the issue who hope for a just and lasting peace.

In conclusion, let’s turn our attention back to Stein and the Green Party. I’m not well versed in many of the platform planks of the Green Party. I’ve heard some of the things that Stein has said, but frankly haven’t paid too much attention. But I couldn’t ignore her choice for running mate. After all, it is the first important decision made by a presidential candidate. So go back and review some of the positions that her chosen running mate has taken and then think about how well those positions reflect your own views on the issue. Ask yourself why, among all of the other possible voices on the left of the political spectrum, Jill Stein and the Green Party chose Baraka. What does that choice say about Stein? What does it say about her understanding of the positions of her supporters? Does she share Baraka’s views on these issues? In any event, it seems that by this one choice alone, Stein has demonstrated how poor her judgment is and has essentially disqualified herself as a viable candidate for President. John McCain hurt himself greatly with his choice of Sarah Palin but Stein’s choice of Baraka makes that prior blunder pale in comparison (or would if Stein was a viable candidate…).

Please recognize that Stein is not a viable candidate for President. I understand (kinda) opposition to Clinton, but please don’t cast your vote for the Stein-Baraka ticket and, perhaps, do as Ralph Nader did in 2000, and hand the Presidency to the Republicans and Donald Trump.

-----

*While I don’t really suggest that you waste your time looking (sadly, I did), just a quick review of the titles of the essays that Baraka has published on CounterPunch will certainly give the impression that the only issue of importance to him is the treatment of people of color and his expression of concern about that treatment is blatant racism directed against whites.

**It’s interesting to note that Baraka is identified as a signatory of the report as a member from Cali, Colombia, and not from the United States; all of the other members of the Delegation are identified as being from the United States. So, a man who wants to be Vice President serves on an international delegation but doesn’t identify himself as being from America. Good to know.

Biased and Misleading Headlines About Palestinian Attacks on Israelis

Do you remember the headline about the man who was killed in a classroom full of children after they’d apparently allowed themselves to get in the way of his bullets? What about the one about the airline passengers who died when a building knocked the plane out of the sky? How angry would you be if headlines following 9/11 focused on the deaths of the hijackers without mentioning the acts that they had committed? How angry would you have been if, following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the headlines focused on the death of Adam Lanza without explaining that he had just killed children?

Yet those are the sort of headlines that are used to “describe” the ongoing wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis (and Jewish holy sites). Here are several examples (most taken from CAMERA’s article Wave of Palestinian Violence Accompanied by Spate of Bad Writing):

That headline comes from the British newspaper The Independent (and is was later corrected, somewhat). What does that headline omit? How about the fact that the boy in question had just engaged in one of the stabbing attacks. He stabbed two Ultra Orthodox men (both in their 60s). In other words, the headline focuses on the deaths of those who have committed the terrorist acts and says nothing about those who have been the victims of the attacks. As CAMERA also notes, when The Independent previously mentioned a 16-year-old Israeli killed by a Palestinian, that Israeli was described as a “teen” not as a “boy”.

Consider this headline and story from The Wall Street Journal’s Facebook page:

Those two Palestinian teenagers? Yeah, they were the knife-wielding assailants that the story mentions. And the victims? One was a 14-year-old Israeli boy riding his bicycle after buying some candy. This particular story is also interesting because Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in a televised speech, accused Israel of executing the Palestinian assailants:

In a televised speech on Wednesday night, Mr Abbas condemned the “occupation and aggression of Israel and its settlers” who “execute our boys in cold blood, as they did with the boy Ahmed Manasra”.

One problem. Not only did Israel not “execute” Ahmed Manasra, they even treated his injuries in an Israeli hospital (where he confessed to the attacks). Yet when Israel criticized Abbas for his claim that Manasra had been executed, The New York Times would only refer to Israel’s accusation:

The article notes that Mansara is alive and that Abbas said that he was executed, but the headline, rather than talking about Abbas’ lie, focuses on Israel and its accusation. Oh, and why would Abbas lie about Israel having “executed” a boy? Incitement, anyone?

Here is some video of the incident:

Or how about this headline from USA Today:

The first paragraph of the article is just as bad:

Four Palestinians were shot and killed by Israelis Saturday in separate stabbing incidents in Jerusalem and the West Bank in the latest in a month-long upsurge in violent confrontations.

Do either the headline or introductory paragraph give you any context to tell you that the Palestinians who had been killed were the ones who had stabbed or tried to stab Israelis?

And here is a headline from the Los Angeles Times (which was also corrected following a complaint from CAMERA):

Do you see a pattern here?

Maybe Reuters will do a better job:

Hmm. Whom and what is a “knife man” and why did the mean Israelis kill him? Might it have involved an attempt by “knife man” to, you know, stab Israelis? Isn’t that, you know, pertinent to the story?

I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but twice in the last week or so, a Jewish holy site (Joseph’s Tomb) has been firebombed by Palestinians. How does CNN report the firebombing?

Yep. It just caught on fire somehow. And note how CNN headlined an attack on an Islamic mosque:

If a mosque burns, it’s an attack that can be blamed on someone (ooh, Jews!), but if Palestinians attack and burn a Jewish shrine, it appears that no agency or ill will is involved.

Sometimes, the headlines (and even articles) are so egregious that they border on being ghoulishly funny:

This one is from The New York Times. There are few things to note here. First, the man “died”. He wasn’t murdered. He simply died. Maybe he died from natural causes, coincidentally at the same time that the rocks pelted his car. Who knows. Second, when do rocks pelt cars? Don’t they need, you know, a human arm to throw them? Well, if you read the article you’ll see that some Palestinians were out for some good-natured fun of throwing rocks at the road. I’m sure they weren’t aiming for cars on the road or the people in those cars, right?

A few more examples (I could probably go on for pages and pages and pages). First, the Irish Independent:

The Telegraph:

Sky News:

Daily Beast:

A brief note about this last headline: It describes a truly tragic event. In the confusion following a shooting by a terrorist in an Israeli bus station that killed one and wounded several others, bystanders killed an innocent man, apparently thinking that he was the terrorist. But here is what is important about this headline. It gives you no context to understand that the man was killed in the chaos and confusion in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. If you read that headline, you’re left to think that a bloodthirsty crowd of Israelis decided to kill someone rather than that they were either trying to apprehend a terrorist or, perhaps, were responding with understandable but unacceptable anger to the terrorist attack.

To go back to the questions I posed in the introductory paragraph, how would you have felt if you saw this headline the day after 9/11:

So ask yourself these questions:

1. Why are these headlines written the way that they are?
2. What is the effect on public opinion when people read headlines like these?

Finally, I thought it was worth sharing video of some of the recent terrorist incidents. Be forewarned that these are disturbing videos:

 

Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to find “clean” versions of these videos; I apologize for the quality and any additional commentary that were added to by third parties.