Friday, 30 July 2010

Just Journalism
Just Journalism NewsletterTop
30 July 2010
Guardian glosses over military training in Gaza camps

Today's Guardian reports on the array of summer camps on offer to the children of Gaza, namely those organised by UNRWA, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

In '
Playing politics: summer camp for Gaza's children,' Middle East correspondent Harriet Sherwood makes clear the differences between the programme provided by the United Nations, which aims 'to give the children a sense of fun and normality' and 'keep them away from troubles and politics' and those run by the militant organisations, which teach that 'Anyone who makes concessions on Palestine is making concessions on the Qur'an.'

The journalist includes quotes from a camp organiser, saying, 'We believe in the right of resistance and we are against peace negotiations' and explains that the camps 'are seen by militant organisations as an opportunity to influence a generation of children'.

However, the article then euphemistically states that militants intend to 'inculcate a duty to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land'. This underplays the fact that these camps have been used to train children on how to conduct terrorist attacks against Israelis. Even when describing the militant activities in the camp, Sherwood does not explicitly discuss this controversial issue.

For example, she includes 'military-style marching and exercises' and 'shooting as a sport' among the activities the Palestinian children engage in, but she makes no comment on the implications, when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this training
leads directly to violence.

An info box alongside the article further emphasises this lack of attention to military training. Each camp has its interests described in a 'themes' section; the only reference to military activity is Islamic Jihad's interest in 'resistance'; indeed, the main purpose of the 'themes' category seems to be to contrast the focus of the militant groups ('Jerusalem', 'occupation', prisoners' etc) with that of UNRWA ('fun').

To continue reading, click here.
VIEWPOINT: Afghan war logs, war crimes and hypocrisy

Carmel Gould

It is difficult not to resort to worn phrases like 'double standards' when comparing the British media reaction to the contents of the Afghan war logs with its reaction to (any) Israeli military action. The basic equation is: Israeli operation which results in civilian deaths equals 'war crimes' and 'disproportionate use of force'; Nato operation which results in civilian deaths equals nothing of the sort.

The over-arching theme in media coverage of the Gaza flotilla raid (May 2010), the Dubai assassination (January 2010) and the ongoing discussion of the Gaza conflict (2008/9) has been the question of legality, or, more specifically, the suspicion of criminality of the part of the State of Israel. Was Israel's boarding of the Mavi Marmara in international waters a war crime? Was its use of force against passengers disproportionate? Did the IDF commit war crimes in Gaza? Should Israeli officers be arrested for war crimes should they dare to visit the UK?

Followers of Middle East affairs will be desensitised to the media fixation with such questions. The crux of the matter is the underlying assumption that where alleged non-combatants have died at the hands of Israel, a crime must have been committed. So, with the release of 90,000 previously concealed records documenting the war in Afghanistan, including numerous incidents of the killing of Afghan civilians by Nato soldiers, we might have expected a similar narrative.

Not so. Of
52 articles published on the websites of BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times on 25 and 26 July (the first two days of reportage), not one cited the international legal concept of 'proportionality'. Hence, no accusations of 'disproportionate' force against Nato troops.

Likewise, the term 'war crimes' - omnipresent in any discussion of Israel's conduct in Gaza - was notably near-absent. Only eight articles mentioned the term, all but one of these referring directly to the claim by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that troops may have killed civilians unlawfully.

Incredibly, The Guardian's dedicated webpage containing 23 articles only made two references to possible war crimes and neither appeared in the section called 'The death toll' which focused on civilian deaths.


To continue reading, click here.
New in the Weekly Standard: What Cameron Doesn't Know About Turkey
Just Journalism Executive Director Michael Weiss argues in the US magazine the Weekly Standard that Prime Minister David Cameron's recent remarks in Ankara failed to take into account the fact that Turkey is now sponsoring jihadists, not guarding against them.

Who said this?

"Hamas are resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land. They have won an election. I have told this to U.S. officials ... I do not accept Hamas as a terrorist organization. I think the same today. They are defending their land."

That would be Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking before an exultant crowd a few weeks ago in the city of Konya as a newly decorated defender of regional Islamism. This is the man whom David Cameron was out to please the other day when, in a speech delivered in Ankara, he referred to Gaza as a "prison camp," assailed Israel's raid on the Mavi Marmara as "completely unacceptable," and insisted that despite the aura of hopelessness now clinging to Turkey's agonized bid to join the European Union, it must join it whatever the grumblings from Germany and France. Brutal occupation of Cyprus, subjugation of a Kurdish minority in everything from politics to linguistics, and ongoing denial of the Armenian genocide are evidently Maastricht-compatible initiatives to the new British prime minister, considered even by his support base not to "do" foreign policy so terribly well.

That didn't stop a fellow Conservative, MP Daniel Hannan, from encouraging Cameron's Obama-like overture to an increasingly hostile and subversive ally: "Cameron's reasons for backing Ankara's bid for EU membership are solidly Tory: Turkey guarded Europe's flank against the Bolshevists for three generations, and may one day be called on to do the same against the jihadis."

Except that Turkey is sponsoring the jihadists, not guarding against them-a fact which ought to have been clear to Cameron in the post-script news coverage to the flotilla crisis. The best look into Turkey's turn toward radicalism has been provided by independent Turkish journalists who have for months been arguing that Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) is leading the country into the asphyxiating embrace of the East. The Islamist "lite" party, which won power in 2002, used to adhere to a policy of "zero problems with the neighbors;" today it prefers one of helping the neighbors cause problems with the West.

To continue reading, click here.
Donating to Just Journalism
Just Journalism is a not-for-profit organization and relies entirely upon the generosity of our supporters. If you wish to make a donation, please contactmichael@justjournalism.com for more information.