Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by aes256 4958 days ago
The IPS are predisposed to support the underdog in any conflict, and yes, the BBC are widely regarded as having a pro-Palestinian bias.

As for the Electronic Intifada, which you previously cited. I think you can work that one out for yourself.

CAMERA have a detailed and objective timeline of recent events: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&#...

Problems with the EI narrative:

1) The "unarmed, mentally unfit man" is also seen in a photo posted to a Hamas forum holding an assault rifle and wearing an armored vest. He was buried wrapped in a Hamas flag;

2) According to the IDF, this man ignored calls for him to stop and warning shots from soldiers;

3) EI cite a Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (go figure) claim that the boy was fatally wounded by "as a result of the indiscriminate shooting". This is unverified. He was hit during a firefight between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants, while the IDF were disabling explosive devices (two days after two Israelis were seriously injured by a similar such device). The AP reported it was unclear who fired the shot(s) that fatally wounded the boy;

4) EI doesn't mention the explosive device that seriously injured two Israelis on 6th Nov. Nor do they mention the detonation of the explosive-filled tunnel that injured an Israeli soldier on 8th Nov.

It goes on and on...

1 comments

Well then, I guess reality has a pro-Palestinian bias too. 38 Palestinians killed so far, 257 wounded, mostly civilians, vs. 3 Israeli civilians killed.
So the side that loses the most people must be right? What sort of twisted logic is this?