CNN lies & United Nations inquiry into the war in Gaza

It has come to my attention that some readers are visiting The Polemical Report having been directed to an earlier post via the ‘from the blogs’ feature, that Sphere provide, on the CNN international website. The article on CNN, which I reluctantly link, is misleading*. The emphasis of the CNN report seems to be the cost of the damages to United Nations property rather than the deaths of innocent people.

CNN say that the UN report recommends that the IDF should “take better precautions”. This a carefully selected quote that underplays the overriding message of the UN report. CNN’s assessment suggests that the IDF were merely careless rather than wilful. It also repeats the claims made Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak without questioning the validity. Frankly, they omit important facts and mislead. CNN is guilty of lying by omission.

Here are a few things that CNN neglects to mention.

• CNN neglects to mention finding 16 of the UN report, “The board conclude that the IDF [Israeli Defence Force] carried out a direct and intentional strike in to United Nations premises.” The deliberate actions of the IDF resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians seeking shelter.
  

• CNN neglects to mention the use of white phosphorus.
  

• CNN neglects to mention finding 21 of the UN report, which finds the IDF responsible for deaths within around a school, a well-known designated shelter.

• CNN neglects to mention finding 22 of the UN report which establishes that is no evidence to support the IDF’s claims that Hamas had booby-trapped the school and that Hamas was firing from the school’s grounds.
  

• CNN neglects to mention finding 63 of the UN report, which find that the cause of death and injury of children within another UN designated shelter was the IDF.

• CNN neglects to mention the limited scope of the investigation, which will likely mislead those unacquainted with the facts.

The content of the UN report, which details the bombings of schools, a hospital and deaths of civilians, is merely the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE
*Since originally posting this, the CNN report has changed. The CNN report now contains quotes from Israeli President Shimon Peres. The statements made by Shimon Peres are false. Peres said, "We’re outraged because they didn't mention Hamas". This is a bald-faced lie. The UN report not only mentioned Hamas but also blamed Hamas for causing damage in one of the incidents that the report looked at. What is more, the statements made by Peres now dominate the CNN report and are largely repeated without contest. CNN is guilty of contextual lies. Misleading the electorate to the extent of Israeli aggression and Palestinian suffering is a harmful and ignoble cause.

If you have not already done so, check out my original post. If you are interested in finding out more about CNN and its reporting of Israel and Palestine then I recommend that you watch Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.

More posts relating to the United Nations and Israel from The Polemical Report.

To see the 23-page summary that the media coverage is based on, follow the link to ‘Secretary-General’s Summary of the Report of the United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry into certain incidents in the Gaza Strip between 27 December 2008 and 19 January 2009’

United Nations inquiry into the war in Gaza

* If you were directed to this post by CNN, please read 'CNN & United Nations inquiry into the war in Gaza'.

A UN investigation, which looked only at deaths, injuries and damage at UN sites in Gaza during the three-week conflict, found that Israel was responsible for at least seven attacks on UN operations. The UN report comes in the wake of an Israeli internal investigation that concluded that the during the Gaza offensive the army ‘maintained a high professional and moral level’.The full 184-page investigation report by the UN board of inquiry has not been made public, press reports are based on a 23-page summary. 

Al Jazeera - 'UN blames Israel for Gaza attacks'

The UN report, commissioned by Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary-general, said the Israeli military intentionally fired at UN facilities and civilians hiding in them during the war and used disproportionate force. […]

A total of 53 installations used by the United Nations Relief and Works agency (UNRWA) were damaged or destroyed during Israel's Gaza campaign, including 37 schools - six of which were being used as emergency shelters - six health centres, and two warehouses, the UN agency said. […]

Israel's 22-day war on Gaza left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead, including around 400 children, Gaza health officials said, along with 13 Israelis. […]

It also said one of the incidents, when a World Food Programme warehouse in the Karni industrial zone in Gaza was damaged, was largely caused by a rocket "most likely" fired by Hamas or another Palestinian faction and condemned those responsible for using such "indiscriminate weapons" to cause deaths and injuries.

The Guardian - 'UN report accuses Israeli military of negligence in Gaza war'

[The report summary] said: "The board concluded that IDF [Israeli Defence Force] actions involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness with regard to United Nations premises and to the safety of United Nations staff and other civilians within those premises, with consequent deaths, injuries, and extensive physical damage and loss of property." […]

Israel's foreign ministry attempted to pre-empt the report today, saying the Israeli military had already investigated its own conduct during the war and "proved beyond doubt" that it did not fire intentionally at UN buildings. It dismissed the UN inquiry.

"The state of Israel rejects the criticism in the committee's summary report, and determines that in both spirit and language the report is tendentious, patently biased, and ignores the facts presented to the committee," the foreign ministry said in a statement.

It said the inquiry had "preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organisation, and by doing so has misled the world".

Unfortunately, secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, refuses to act on the 11th recommendation of the report, which calls for an “impartial inquiry mandated, and adequately resourced, to investigate allegations of violations of international humanitarian law". This would require Israeli cooperation and would be harder for Israel to dismiss. However, such an enquiry into human rights abuses is seemingly deemed impolitic by Ban Ki-moon.

The UN inquiry into the Israeli war in Gaza comes in the wake of another recent UN report that is critical of Israel’s actions in Palestine; it calls for Israel to “end Palestinian demolitions in Jerusalem”. UN Radio – ‘End Palestinian demolitions in Jerusalem, UN tells Israel’

Of the 70 square kilometers of east Jerusalem and the West Bank annexed by Israel, the report says, only 13 per cent is zoned for Palestinian construction and this was mostly already built up. […]

The UN said it was particularly concerned about areas facing mass demolition, including an area south of the old city, where the threatened destruction of 90 houses would lead to the displacement of a thousand Palestinians.

More posts relating to the United Nations and Israel from The Polemical Report.

The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Geneva speech on racism.

The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Geneva speech on racism. – ‘Jews divided over Ahmadinejad ahead of UN Assembly’.

While the majority were denouncing the presence of the Iranian president, there was also a small group of Jewish people that welcomed his message and called for diplomacy.

Members of Jews United Against Zionism demonstrated behind barricades calling for an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. They consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a peaceful leader and say he deserves more respect from the West.

“President Ahmadinejad, who I personally spoke to for hours – we met him many times – he insists he has nothing against the Jews. He respects, protects them,” Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss from Jew United Against Zionism said.

Although the reportage of the activities of a minor pressure group, whose membership is estimated to be a few thousand, may well be illustrative of bias if given excessive prominence it nonetheless serves to highlight the complexities of the story. Too few news organisations have clearly delineated the distinctions between Zionism and Judaism. They may well be related, but the two are different. Choosing not to report on the actions of these unrepresentative few may well be justifiable in terms of newsworthiness. Needless and inflammatory exaggeration on the other hand cannot.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments were part of a ‘vitriolic’ ‘rambling polemic’, are the words of Israel's deputy PM better?

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments made during his speech were part of a ‘vitriolic’ ‘rambling polemic’, are the words of Silvan Shalom, Israel's deputy prime minister, any more conducive to building an international consensus on racism?

"What Iran is trying to do right now is not far away at all from what Hitler did to the Jewish people just 65 years ago," Shalom said at the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi death camp, hours before a Holocaust memorial ceremony.

Iran "is trying to do everything they can in order to wipe Israel off the map and at the same time to undermine the moderate Arab Muslim regimes in the Middle East." [...]

Robert Gibbs, a White House spokesman, said that Barack Obama, the US president, was strongly opposed to Ahmadinejad's comments.

"This is hateful rhetoric. It is, I think, one of the reasons why you saw the administration and the president determined that its participation in this conference was not a wise thing to do."

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, condemned Ahmadinejad's "speech of hate" and called for a "firm and united" reaction from the European Union.

A view on the walkout.

Antony Lerman - ‘Ahmadinejad, Durban and another fine mess’

Iran's president may have derailed the UN meeting. But rather than walk out, delegates should have stayed to argue their case […]

[The meeting] appears to have been completely derailed by a publicity-seeking, not especially powerful politician, desperately campaigning for re-election as president. And meanwhile, the millions whose lives are utterly blighted by racial discrimination, violence and hatred are relegated to a footnote. Part farce, part tragedy? Seeking refuge in humour doesn't seem an entirely inappropriate way of responding when none of it seems to make any sense.

Some who stayed in their seats clapped and cheered. In whose interests? Did the anti-Israel rhetoric at the 2001 Durban anti-racism conference help alleviate the plight of the Palestinians one iota? No. The last eight years have seen a gross deterioration in their position. Did the attempt to brand Zionism a form of racism help bring closer an end to the aggressive settlement policy on the West Bank? No. It continued apace. And with the new rightwing dominated government now in power in Israel, that policy looks likely to intensify. The Palestinians, who deserve no less than a complete and immediate end to occupation and all the repressive policies and human rights abuses that go with it, lost out then and will lose out again. […]

[T]he boycotts by the US, Canada, Israel, Italy and others only hand a kind of victory on a plate to those who want to hijack the conference for their own, narrow political purposes. Since when has the UN been a children's tea party? It can't help for powerful countries to give the impression that they cannot make the arguments that need to be made against Ahmadinejad and his ilk. And these arguments need to be addressed to a wider world audience. And in whose interests is it for Israel to be playing the victim? Israel too is perfectly capable of making its arguments. What on earth will withdrawing its ambassador from Switzerland achieve? When the dust settles, it will be easy for other states to ask: "Why should we entertain the likes of a far right racist like your foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman?"

Crass journalism muddles already murky understanding.

UPDATE

The Guardian article I criticise now appears on the Guardian website in an edited form having recognised its inaccuracies and been corrected.  It now contains the following clarification:

This clarification was published on Tuesday 21 April 2009.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, deviated from his prepared speech to the UN racism conference, omitting the phrase "the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust". The original text was given to journalists by the Iranian mission to the UN, and was included in the report below in good faith.

The post quotes parts of the Guardian article that have subsequently been corrected.

My original post read as follows

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a contentious figure. Contemptible statements have been attributed to him – and contested. In short, many view him as an anti-Semite. This claim emerges primarily from his pronouncements on the Holocaust and Israel. He allegedly denies the Holocaust and argues that Israel should be ‘wiped of the map’. The claims made in his defence are that his words were poorly translated, taken out of context, exaggerated and manipulated. This is certainly true, to some extent.

It is interesting to note that even the Guardian, arguably the most left leaning British broadsheet, opted not to report the apparent applause for parts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations. They preferred to focus on the less appealing aspects of his speech.

When he did speak, he was even more vitriolic than they had feared. In a rambling polemic, Ahmadinejad questioned the reality of the Holocaust, accused Israel of genocide and spoke of a wide-ranging Zionist conspiracy, triggering pandemonium and a coordinated walkout by Britain and other EU states.

This is not true. Ahmadinejad had not ‘questioned the reality of the Holocaust’ ‘triggering pandemonium and a coordinated walkout by Britain and other EU states’. If he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, it was after the walkout. If he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, I am yet to find evidence as an entire transcript is not yet available*. The BBC news ‘In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech’ provides no evidence of Holocaust denial in this speech. It is worth reiterating, if he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, it was after the walkout.

It is true that Ahmadinejad accused Israel of genocide and spoke of a wide-ranging Zionist conspiracy. Talk of genocide of Palestinians came after the walkout had begun.

I am not arguing about the contents of Ahmadinejad’s speech, its merits or its demerits (although I may do at a later date). Nor am I arguing in defence of him or his regime – just type ‘Iran’ into Human Rights Watch to see Iran’s hall of shame. I would welcome greater exposure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s deplorable actions. It is the opportunism and needless exaggeration that I deplore. Crass journalism muddles our already murky understanding. The report should be balanced rather than put through a filter that makes the story less edifying.

For supporting evidence follow the links in - 'Walkout at Iran leader's criticism of Israel'

* See UPDATE below

For more on this story see

• 'The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Durban speech on racism'.

• 'If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments were part of a ‘vitriolic’ ‘rambling polemic’, are the words of Israel's deputy PM better?'

• 'A view on the walkout'

UPDATE

The complete speech is now available on youtube

Walkout at Iran leader's criticism of Israel

See footage of the walkout at Iran leader's speech on racism at UN conference - BBC news - 'Walkout at Iran leader's speech'.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".

He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine." […]

Two protesters, wearing coloured wigs, disrupted the start of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech - followed by a mass walkout of Western delegates.

Al Jazeera - 'Israel criticism sparks UN walkout'

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued,] "The UN security council has stabilised this occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a free hand to continue their crimes," he told delegates at the Durban Review Conference hall in Geneva. [...]

"The Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses ... wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists ... in the US administration, in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies?". Many delegates who remained in the hall applauded Ahmadinejad's comments. […]

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera's correspondent at the conference, said Ahmadinejad had reiterated his views on Israel, especially over its 22-day war on Gaza. He said: "At the time [of the offensive] he said what was going on in Gaza was a genocide ... this was an opportunity for him to say that at a world forum. "There are people in the hall who believe that what Ahmadinejad was saying is correct - that is why there is such a split here." […]

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, condemned Ahmadinejad's "speech of hate" and called for a "firm and united" reaction from the European Union. Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister, said the Iranian leader's comments had "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference ... he made Iran the odd man out".

The speech by Ahmadinejad, who is a frequent critic of Israel and has cast doubt on the extent of the killing of Jews during the Second World War, coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, which begins at sundown on Monday.

The United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, had earlier said they would not attend the conference amid fears Ahmadinejad would use the summit to propagate anti-Semitic views. […]

The UN organised the summit to help heal the wounds left by its last racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, when the US and Israel walked out after Arab states sought to define Zionism as being racist.

The Guardian - 'Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist''.

France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, speaking before Ahmadinejad's speech, said "we will not tolerate any blunder or provocation" from Ahmadinejad, who has referred to the Holocaust as a myth and called for Israel to be "wiped off the pages of history". […]

The Foreign Office said in a statement, also released before the speech: "The United Kingdom has argued strongly for the concluding document to contain adequate language on Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism. We will find unacceptable any attempt to use the Durban process to trivialise or deny the Holocaust, or to renegotiate agreements on the fight against antisemitism." […]

Ahmadinejad's speech and press conference will be carefully scrutinised for his tone towards the US after Barack Obama's recent overtures to Tehran. The Iranian president has ruled out compromise on Iran's nuclear programme, but has occasionally raised hopes of a thaw in US-Iranian relations, as he did yesterday when he insisted that an Iranian-American journalist, sentenced by an Iranian court to eight years in prison on espionage charges, should be guaranteed the full right to defend herself in her appeal. The Iranian government today urged Obama not to comment on the case.