Palestinian Writers Need to Face the Facts

By Ari Gilder & Gadi Dotz

Palestinians are jubilant as yet another anti-Semitic, fallacious, irresponsible polemic was launched against the Israelis in print. Except that this article didn’t appear in Al Hayat, or the Saudi state press – it was in the Midwood Argus. Using a favored propaganda strategy of distorting the facts, the author of the article relays utter misinformation as the basis of her argument. Once properly analyzed however, the article is stripped down to baseless accusations and cleverly crafted prevarications.

The title of the article, “Palestinian’s Fear Outlives September 11,” is a gross exaggeration by itself. The events of September 11 are terrorist acts at their core. If one is to compare the Middle East crisis to September 11, who then should fear? Terrorist acts are attempted almost every day in Israel by Palestinian extremists. News sources constantly report successful suicide bombings, and occasionally foiled attempts in crowded areas. The locations of these bombings are not dissimilar to malls, cafés and clubs in our city that are often populated with many young adults. Attacks in a Tel Aviv disco or a crowded pedestrian mall in Jerusalem have claimed the lives of over thirty people, with the average age of victims being no older than 18. And though these two attacks have amassed over three hundred injured bystanders, the media does not discuss the extent of the injuries. Some of those people may have lost limbs and may be permanently paralyzed. Who then should fear terrorist acts? Who needs to be cautious when meeting a group of friends on Saturday night at a pizza store?

Perhaps Palestinians need to fear violent radicals from within. Unfortunately, some people feel their ideals to be superior to human life. The author of the article cites the death of a twelve year old boy, Mohammed al-Dura, who died in his father’s arms during crossfire between Palestinian snipers and Israeli Defense Forces, as a proof for the murder of innocent children by Israeli soldiers. The author conveniently leaves out the interesting aftermath to this event. While the Israeli Army publicly apologized for the “accidental shooting” due a lack of any other explanation, an investigation and re-enactment of the Netzarim Junction gun battle was carried out. The position of the IDF soldiers was about thirty degrees south of east from the position of al-Dura and his father. Any Israeli soldier’s view of the two was totally obstructed by a concrete barrel that shielded them. Furthermore, an examination of the bullet holes in the nearby wall had startling results. The bullet holes were not elongated and deformed, like they should be if they were fired at a thirty degree angle. Instead, they were almost perfectly rounded, which indicates that the incoming shots were fired at a direct, ninety degree angle. Since no Israeli soldier was located in the perpendicular vicinity of the wall, the only possible remaining conclusion is that Mohammed al-Dura was murdered by a Palestinian for the purpose of martyrdom.

Another issue the author brings up is an “invasion of a refugee camp operated by the United Nations,” and the killing of “over 650 innocent Palestinians.” Again, the author neglects that the fact-finding committee delegated by the UN declared that there was no massacre in the Jenin refugee camp. Allegations of such a massacre resulted after the IDF used tanks and helicopters to demolish booby-trapped houses that were suspected terrorist hideouts. The UN delegation confirmed in its report that the death toll was no more than 56. The Israeli Army was briefed explicitly not to injure a single innocent bystander before the operation was carried out. The goal of the mission was to destroy any hives or suppliers of terrorism. President Bush declared shortly after September 11 that his goals are similar. “We must root out the terrorists and those that harbor them,” became the new anti-terrorist policy of the United States. But when Israel seeks to do the same, its actions are condemned as a massacre?

Finally, the writer uses descriptions of Israeli soldiers raping women or killing babies in their carriages to evoke a sense of sympathy from the readers of the article. This technique is perfectly reasonable to use in such a polemic, with one flaw. There has never been any case of rape or murder of innocents by the Israeli Army. The author cites examples of cruelty by Israeli soldiers that never occurred. Members of the IDF are trained carefully to avoid even the remotest injury to a civilian at all costs. There has not been a single report of any such occurrence in the New York Times, CNN, BBC or any other reliable news source. The stories that the author uses are cunning fabrications designed to draw public sympathy when it is not deserved.

When entering a debate through the written word, any journalist must be responsible when citing facts. Events that never happened or are taken out of context can cause a great deal of confusion in the public's eye. Claims should be investigated both for and against one's viewpoint in order for a writer to properly present his or her argument.  Many prominent news organizations such as the New York Times and CNN often fail to fully investigate information they receive before allowing it to go to print.  Such was the case in September, 2000, when the Times printed a distorted caption under a picture of a bleeding teenager with an Israeli soldier yelling fiercely in the background, baton in hand.  The newspaper used the photo to illustrate the cruelty of Israeli soldiers against the Palestinians.  In reality, the boy was Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish boy badly beaten by Palestinians, and the soldiers were protecting, not attacking, him.  Retractions were eventually published, but the damage done by the negative public relations was irreparable.  The "facts" should have been verified before the original article was printed, just as they should have been verified before they were allowed to be printed in the Midwood Argus. 

The most frightening aspect of the Midwood article is not that an abundance of anti-Israel propaganda exists even within our own city's public schools, but rather, that such misinformation was allowed to be published.  The article is an editorial, and as such, the writer is entitled to submit anything.  However, it is the duty of the editorial staff and faculty advisors to stop any false information from making its way into the finished publication.  Does editing out false information constitute limiting free speech, our First Amendment right? Absolutely not!  An editorial may be skewed in favor of a particular opinion, but outright lies and unsubstantiated arguments are inexcusable.  Claims of mass murder and rape with nothing to back them up are a form of libel, untruthful words published to defame Israel and incite hatred of Jews.  

The author of the piece perhaps believes everything she wrote, perhaps won over by the pro-Palestinian propaganda machine. However, the other members of the newspaper staff and the faculty advisors also found nothing inherently wrong with the article.  Are these people all supporters of the Palestinian cause?  Are they merely liberals using the school paper as a forum for different viewpoints? Or are they simply negligent? If the student editors failed to verify the validity of the accusations in the article, the faculty advisors should have, especially accusations as serious and obviously fallacious as those printed in the Argus.  Furthermore, before any school-sponsored publication is released, the principal has the obligation to review its content for factual errors and appropriateness.  This step was obviously omitted in the case of the Argus editorial.
Even if a rebuttal is printed in the next issue of Midwood's newspaper, the damage has already been done.  The anti-Israel editorial has reached the eyes of thousands of students, many of whom will mistake the unsubstantiated accusations as truth.  An editorial should only include opinions if they are solidly supported by fact.  Apparently, the editors, faculty advisors, and principal at Midwood High School are unaware of this essential factor of responsible journalism.

*editor's note: All information contained in this article has been verified by reliable sources and has been reviewed by the Phoenix's faculty advisor and the school principal.