Guardian Hypocrisy

The Guardian in their article on HRW's report, demonstrate their usual anti-Israel bias, where they only present the Palestinian version of events with lots of detail, and then snarkily dismiss Israel's version in quotation marks - the IDF's investigaton "concluded that they 'operated in accordance with international law'".

"The Israeli military said that in some cases Hamas militants had used civilians with white flags for cover. It said yesterday the reports were based on 'unreliable witnesses' whose testimony was 'unproven'... Human Rights Watch said it could find no evidence of misuse of white flags or the use of civilians as human shields in the cases detailed."

So with Israel it's "unreliable witnesses", in quotations, but Human Rights Watch found NO EVIDENCE of that. I think I'll direct them to the video I posted below.

HRW's "report follows the publication last month of anonymous testimonies by more than two dozen soldiers who fought in Gaza, compiled by Breaking the Silence... which accused the IDF of allowing an atmosphere of permissive violence against civilians".

More than two dozen! But, in the interests of Inaccuracy, the Guardian fails to mention the other soldiers' testimonies, from Soldiers Speak Out. It ignores the fact that HRW's 'evidence' is just based on rumours, and continues:

"They [Israel] accuse the organisation of having an anti-Israeli bias, despite the fact that HRW has also forcefully criticised Palestinian rocket fire out of Gaza that targeted civilians."

Really? HRW said that?! Oh, yeah, I did write about it. But the Guardian DIDN'T! Because, as usual, they only ever report one side of the story. If they didn't report that story in the first place, I don't think they have the right to bring it up now to use against us, and pretend that such a big deal was made about Hamas firing rockets. We all know no one cares about the rockets anyway, that it's just seen as a 'primitive' method for the poor freedom fighters to try and save themselves.