From: Ali Abunimah
To: morning@npr, atc@npr.org
Subject: Retaliation

April 17, 2001

Dear NPR News,

You have reported many times this morning that the heavy and deadly Israeli bombardment and "reoccupation" of parts of the already Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip last night was in "retaliation" or a "retaliatory attack" for an apparent Palestinian mortar attack on the Israeli town of Sderot.

How do you know this? Is it because the Israeli government said so? It seems just as plausible to me--and in fact much more likely--that the Palestinian mortar attack was staged in retaliation for Israel's successive attacks on Khan Yunis and Rafah refugee camps in occupied Gaza in the past week which killed several Palestinians, seriously injured more than one hundred, and rendered hundreds more homeless as dozens of houses were bulldozed and bombed by the occupation forces using tanks and bulldozers with machine guns mounted on their roofs.

You have consistently made a biased and purely subjective presumption that Israeli violence is justified while Palestinian violence is 'terrorism' meriting "retaliation." This judgment is clearly reflected in your choice of terminology which portrays Israeli violence as "retaliation"--when you bother to report it that is, since you almost completely ignored the assault on Rafah this weekend in order to focus on one lightly injured Israeli.

Even worse, one news bulletin referred to the Israeli assault as a "crackdown on Palestinian militants." If you had bothered to report on the events last weekend, you would know that Israel's "crackdowns" have consistently been against civilians, the latest assaults being no exception. Civilians fled screaming from their houses as the mahine-gun toting bulldozers ran them over. Are these the "militants" you are referring to?

In future your reports should reflect that Palestinians are defending themselves and resisting against an occupying army. They are retaliating against the relentless and unremitting violence of that army with the limited means at their disposal, and they have every right to do so. Under the Fourth Geneva Conventions, the occupying power is prohibited from "retaliating" and taking reprisals against the occupied population, and deliberately destroying their property. Yet the Israeli version of events is accepted with no questions asked.

Another example: Israel occupies the Golan Heights in violation of international law. Hizbullah carries out an operation against a military target within the Shebaa Farms area of the Golan Heights/Lebanon border. Israel then launches an air attack on the Syrian Army. This is termed "retaliation." Why is it not the case that Israel's belligerent occupation is rightly labelled an aggression, and the Hizbullah action "retaliation"? Syria is not occupying Israel. It is the other way round, and yet the belligerent occupier is described as "defending" itself. This surreal language misleads and misinforms.

Referring to the Israeli assault in Gaza last night, Jennifer Ludden also reported that "Israeli army spokemen deny they intend to stay in Palestinian areas permanently and that they will pull out soon." This is ludicrous, Israel's army has not left the Gaza Strip for a single day since 1967. This kind of "reporting" makes it sound as if it had and as its presence in Gaza is somehow exceptional.

Stop being spokesmen for the Israeli government and start reporting things as they are.

Sincerely,

Ali Abunimah
http://www.abunimah.org