User:PalestineRemembered/OriginalResearch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Independent accused of anti-Israel

There is a (currently) terrible article at Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, implying that Israel is unfairly maligned. At least three of the examples (after an alleged complete re-write!) presented only demonstrate sloppy writing, and may demonstrate that Israel is unfairly protected from criticism.

It is less obvious that this example is false than the others. It currently reads: "On October 28, 2006, The Independent published an article, by Robert Fisk, which speculated, based on information from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, that Israel may have used depleted Uranium weapons during the 2006 Lebanon War [74]. The article prompted criticism by HonestReporting for coming to conclusions prematurely [78] and resulted in an investigation by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) [75]. On November 8, 2006, UNEP concluded that Israel had not used any form of Uranium-based weapons [76][77]. Israelis and Israel advocates cite the article as an instance of "shoddy journalism", arising allegedly as a result of media sensationalism [79]."

It is true that the front-page headline "Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb" gives a misleading description of the content of the article, which mostly concerns cases where Israel is "known" to be in breach of International agreements and/or to have lied or denied it. (eg White Phosporus, generally considered a chemical weapon if used on civilians). The sub-title (Robert Fisk's own work?) says "Alarm over radioactive legacy left by attack on Lebanon", which is perfectly proper. Fisk asks whether a "secret new uranium-based weapon" was used, in the context of bunker-busting - the article seems to read perfectly properly to me.

Worse, it's not even clear that the laboratory claim about the Uranium is wrong. The refutation is based on 32 samples "north and south of the Litani river" - not at Khiam/At-Tiri, where Hizbollah had it's frontline stronghold in 2006, and from which the original samples were taken. This is the obvious area where untested DU tipped bunker-busters would have been used. But At-Tiri is c. 20km away from the river, around 3 quarters of the way towards Israel. It would actually be surprising if DU (depleted uranium) were not being used by the IDF, the US has certainly used it widely.

There is another obvious reason for the UN not venturing to the right area to take samples - Israel is "known" (according to the very UN refutation we're looking at!) to have used "low-detonation rate" cluster bombs, widely thought of as mine-laying. (Perhaps the UN only took samples from a boat on the river). In 2006 Israel actually killed 4 UN personnel in the area, despite knowing and being repeatedly warned they were there. PR^talk 11:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)