profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Exchange with Jeremy Bowen Re Gaza

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joe emersberger

Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: Exchange with Jeremy Bowen Re Gaza Reply with quote

RE: Why Gaza war looks set to go on

Mr. Bowen:

You wrote

"It [Israel] has persuaded many of its allies that it has the right to defend itself, but it has not won the argument over the methods it is using."

You should have added that Israel has succeeded in getting western journalists to report as if Palestinians have no right to self defence, and as if there were no Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Note that the word "occupation" appears nowhere in this lengthy article - nor any acknowledgement of Palestinians' right to resist.

Quite shamefully, you wrote that Hamas "could have extended the ceasefire with Israel but chose not to do so." Israel broke the truce on November 4 and maintained a siege that violated its terms. Given these facts you are effectively saying that Hamas could have chosen to lay down and die under Israel's assault but chose not to.

Joe Emersberger

In a message dated 1/9/2009 2:39:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes:
Dear Mr Emersberger

There is a controversy about who exactly broke the ceasefire which I did
not get into in the article in question. I think what is more relevant
now is where this war is going to go. afterwards there will be time to
revisit how it began.

Our coverage from here is impartial and accurate. We do not take
direction from either side.


Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East Editor

Mr. Bowen
You must be aware of the statement by Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur to Occupied Territories that "The truce was maintained by Hamas despite the failure of Israel to fulfill its obligation under the agreement to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza."[1]

Falk has also pointed out that

"There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza..."[2]

So according to a source that only the most determined apologists for Israel would consider unreliable we have

1)a truce whose terms Israel never honoured,
2) a military raid by Israel which broke the ceasefire on November 4
3) very dubious allegations that by Israel that Hamas was responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza,
4) numerous calls by Hamas to extend the truce which were ignored.

Where is the controversy? How can you seriously claim that the falsehood of Israel's justification for a murderous assault on virtually defenceless people is irrelevant in a piece that supposedly analyzes the conflict?

You are clearly wrong to say that your article did not address this question. You wrote that Hamas "could have extended the ceasefire with Israel but chose not to do so." thereby doing even worse than suggesting that Israel's claims are controversial. You have suggested that they are true.

Joe Emersberger

Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:27 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly