Why Wasn't Goldstone Invited to Grandson's Bar Mitzvah?

Certainly the worst part of the report was in the many parts that he is now retracting, that the IDF purposefully targeted civilians. He now says that the "fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion" when the report was written. But in reality, if he had looked at both the history of how the IDF acts in war in general, the specifics that were known about how the IDF acted in Gaza, and how wars in urban combat zones are generally waged (i.e., in Iraq), of he was fair he would have easily concluded that the IDF was not purposefully targeting civilians and that they went out of their way, indeed even above and beyond, to avoid targeting real civilians (while Hamas was dressing up its fighters in civilian clothing.)

It appears that now, two years later, he is impressed that Israel is conducting investigations into acts of individual soldiers. Yet this is how the IDF always acted.

His belated retraction also doesn't note that much of what his report said was known to be false at the time the Goldstone Report was released, as I and others have documented quite exhaustively. His report had a clear and consistent bias where Israeli claims were treated skeptically but Hamas claims were believed without reservation. To come back 18 months later and lamely admit that Israeli claims were indeed found to be accurate just shows how biased he was in accepting problematic testimony then.

Reuters Sickens Us All by Its Bias

It is most interesting to see how the mainstream media's initial breaking stories betray their inherent anti-Israel bias. Then when their attention is called to this, they quietly change their articles, without acknowledging the initial bias.

For the second time in three weeks, Reuters has shown what they really think of Israel.

On March 12, Reuters referred to the IDF as "Israel's occupation forces" - an anti-Israel term used by Arabs only. They silently corrected that.

This time, Reuters headlined its story about the terror attack today this way:

Jerusalem bombing kills woman after 7-year lull


And then it says:

Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.

I grabbed this from the Reuters-UK feed, because the American version was quickly changed (and the UK version might be changed by the time I post this.). The headline is now

Bomb explodes near Jerusalem bus, 1 dead, 30 hurt

and the other sentence has been turned into a lie:

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the explosion, which Israeli police termed a Palestinian "suicide attack."

No one said this was a suicide bombing!

But back to the initial headline. Reuters is saying that there has been a seven year lull in bombings in Jerusalem.

This is not only a lie, but it is intentionally misleading.

The last suicide attack in Jerusalem was in September, 2004. But there have been other suicide bombings in Israel since then, as recently as 2008 (Dimona.)

But let's say that Reuters is only talking about Jerusalem, for some reason, as if terror attacks there are different than those in the rest of Israel. The last fatal terror attack in Jerusalem was a man being knifed to death in October, 2008, and in July 2008 three Jerusalem Jews were killed by a terrorist who rammed into them with a bulldozer.

But let's say that Reuters is only referring to roadside bombs. There was a pipe-bomb in Gilo, Jerusalem only a couple of weeks ago, and a sanitation worker lost his arm in the explosion. Obviously the intent was to kill there as well.

So Reuters, by seemingly referring only to the lack of major, fatal bombings in Jerusalem itself as a "lull," was consciously trying to minimize the number of terror attacks in Jerusalem - in the headline of an article about the latest attack!

Not to mention that Reuters pooh-poohs the term "terrorist attack" as some sort of Israeli propaganda when a mere 38 people are injured and only one dead. Reuters instead refers to it in more military terms: a "Palestinian strike." No doubt the lady who was killed was a legitimate military target as well, in Reuters' writers' minds.

They say that you can find out how people really think when they are drunk or sleepy. In reuters' case, you can see how they really feel in the initial bulletins after Jews are killed.

(h/t Zach)
Elder of Ziyon

Caption This!

Here is snapshot of Obama last night at the Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan and the Ground Zero mosque with Jane Ramsey, liberal Jew (aka Jewicidal) Jewish Council on Urban Affairs chief at the Ramadan dinner. What a shonda. Gd forbid she asks Obama what he is doing to address the virulent Islamic antisemitism that is inspiring incitement to Jew hatred and Jewish genocide in Muslim countries and Israel, as well as the slaughter of millions of Jews over a millennium. (photo hat tip Terri)

How about ....."the trains will be leaving the station shortly.........."