Los Angles Times stops short of refuting Israeli claims about "Hamas operatives"

During a severe crisis like the one in Gaza, when every single day of warfare means more large scale violence in and around one of the most densely populated cities in the world, we rely on the media to inform citizens so they in-turn can make informed choices in response. The media has a profound responsibility to examine claims made by the parties that are directly or indirectly responsible for the death and destruction. When they fail us they are complicit in the crimes.
In the Jan 7, 2009 Los Angeles Times there was a report about a United Nations school shelled by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) : “Calls for Gaza truce mount after school hit.” The attack was on the Al-Fakhora school in the Jabalia Refugee Camp in north of Gaza City on Jan 6, 2009, which killed at least 30 civilians. After giving the basic facts of the attack The Time’s writers cite Israeli officials justifying the attack by saying, “the school was targeted because Hamas militants had launched mortar rounds from its grounds…”, but the article does not cite the statement made by Christopher Gunness, an Official of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), on Democracy Now: “It’s important to say that the coordinates of all of our facilities in Gaza were handed over to the Israelis well before this offensive began.” Or the Associated Press article which states that the UN had given the IDF the GPS coordinates of its 23 schools being used as a civilian shelter during the incursion. The statement by the Israeli official coupled with the information given by the UNRWA official and AP (of which is undisputed by the State of Israel) acknowledges a clear war-crime of intentionally targeting civilians under the Protocol II, article 13 of the Geneva Convention.
The Times article also doesn't clarify that it is extremely unlikely that the persons firing mortars from the school were targeting anything outside of the Gaza Strip, since most mortars have a maximum range of 2.15-2.89 status miles. There is an extended range mortar which has a maximum range of 3.46 miles; however, it is very expensive and it is not commonly used by Palestinians. If said persons wanted to target civilians it is far more likely that they would have been using Qassam Rockets instead of mortars.
Given that they couldn’t have been targeting civilians and were very likely targeting IDF positions within the Gaza Strip, their actions are protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter as defense against an invasion of the Gaza Strip by the IDF; furthermore, the IDF invasion violates Article one, two, and thirty-three of the UN Charter.
In summary The Times fails to: refute the Israeli claims of mortars being fired by "terror operatives", or “Hamas operatives”; defend the actions of the persons firing the mortars as internationally recognized acts of defense; or expose Israel's actions as war crimes.
The article does offer a comment of the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon about the "dangers inherent in the continuation and escalation of this conflict", but it does not give an impression of how dangerous it was for the IDF to shell the refugee camp. The Al-Fakhora school is located in the Jabalia Refugee Camp. The Palestinian refugees living in the camp are from the war of 1948 which established Israel’s independence. The conditions in the camp are extremely dismal and cramped. According to UNRWA as of 2005, 106,691 refugees live in make-shift shelters within the .87 sq. mile camp. The IDF had to know that the density of the population along with the conditions in the camp made it almost certain that a high level of civilian casualties would result from such an attack.
Finally, the citations within the article give a heavy voice to the State of Israel, but very little to Palestinian officials. The Times cites official Israeli sources eight times (including the first after the introduction) while Palestinian ones get two. There were two official US sources, three UN and no citations of independent media or humanitarian aid, and in the last four paragraphs of the story there were two Palestinian civilian sources (including a doctor at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City).

CNN’s Ali Velshi presses the urgency of getting public funds into large banks and corporations.

During CNN’s No Bias with Campbell Brown on Nov 24, 2008, Ali Velshi (CNN’s Chief Business Correspondent) was introduced to give some analysis on the announcement that Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner would be economic advisors for the coming Obama administration.

Velshi starts the segment by pressing the urgency of getting Obama’s economic plan through Congress, saying, “They don’t have much time. They’ve got to get into this thing immediately and solve this problem.” Then during a discussion with Velshi, Campbell Brown says that some people didn’t think that there were enough strings attached to Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, such as, “management changes” to the institutions that received government money. Velshi Comments:

Sure, there’s still more to come on this, there’s a lot that has to be fixed. But what (Congressman) Barney Frank said last week with the automakers is that we learned from the $700 billion bail out. Some banks got money and did things that they weren’t suppose to with it, so now it’s a little more directed. Remember this is still the free market so companies have to have some freedom to change how they deploy the money. Citigroup didn’t deploy it well in the first place. So this is the struggle that we got do we go into an entirely controlled economy because we want to dictate how that money goes that might be the solution but it will be a bitter pill for people to swallow. That’s the decision that these guys have to make. Do they stimulate the economy or do they start directing it?

But what Barney Frank (D-Mass.) actually said, in a press conference on Nov. 21, 2008, was after a congressional hearing with the heads of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler is that:

Congress can operate at one of two speeds either way too slow or much too fast. If we were to pass this [bail out for auto-makers] right away I could already write this story for tomorrow: in a rushed, barely examined, commitment of many more taxpayer dollars congress leapt into an abyss. The context is this, there is widespread dissatisfaction not just in the congress but in the country with what is perceived to be a failure of the recipients of those funds [of the $700 billion bail out] to carry out the intent that the congress had.

Although some of the same language from Frank crept into Velshi’s analysis his point is exactly the contrary. Frank is warning of the dangers of pushing legislation through too quickly. You would think that the Chief Business Correspondent would understand Frank’s point. Many countries including the US have rammed through economic legislation that was alleged to help but only turned out to be a giant give-away to big business in the form of deregulation, tax breaks, and subsidies. Within the segment Velshi also claims that companies should have some say in how they deploy money. But Ali should consider his next sentence where he admits that Citigroup, one of the companies needing another ‘bail out’, “didn’t deploy it [government issued money] well”. Not only does he contradict himself, and once again make the counter-argument to Frank’s with Frank’s words, but he is not even giving consideration to the very cause of the crisis: the unregulated securities market. The very problem with the credit crisis is that unregulated financial institutions turned Commodity Default Swaps into a gambling game and when real estate prices began to fall-they lost and lost big. Now lending institutions are squeamish about lending money, even to very large and well established institutions.

Velshi also never explains why companies “should have some say in how they deploy money”, or how bail-outs are contrary to a “free market.” And yet the anchors on CNN routinely treat him as some sort of economic wise man that will be able to clearly explain the economic crisis.

The next day, Nov. 25, Tom Foreman is hosting No Bias with Campbell Brown.

Tom Foreman: “Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson added to the bail out plan again another $200 billion to unfreeze consumer credit-what ever that means. Perhaps it’s a sign of hope. Maybe the bail out is being aimed at the average American wallet instead of the big pockets of those big money bankers.”

Then Ali Velshi is introduced to explain some details. Velshi shows this graphic:

what he calls “basically the deal that we’ve got going right now”, and explains that “they [government] were loaning money to banks… with the understanding that that money would trickle down into consumer loans…that isn’t what’s been happening all that well.”

Then Velshi adds a third method for the “government” to get funds to “you” in the graphic:

He then explains that a new $200 billion in aid to banks was announced today. Velshi, pointing to the “banks” on the graph says, “The government is sort of circumventing this”, and, “the trick here is that the government is lending money that is likely to be used for the purpose that is was intended. What happened is that when the government was giving money at the highest level it wasn’t filtering all the way down. So the issue here Tom is that maybe, maybe we’re getting closer to the individual, to getting money, consumer credit, for individuals.” Then Velshi notes that this is a crucial time of year. Foreman then clarifies: “So the real goal here is to have people out there considering doing their holiday shopping… to feel like maybe they can.” Towards the end of the segment Velshi does admit that he’s “not sure it’s the right plan.” According to Velshi’s graphic and explanation the only way government can “trickle down” money to you is through corporations and banks. Even the third leg that he added to the graphic is still an example of the government giving banks funds that is intended to benefit you. Velshi never explains other methods of stimulating the economy like public works projects which can be executed through public institutions, or price controls. These were major tenets of the New Deal that was passed in the 1930’s.

Later during the same show, in the debate segment Velshi talked about “if you can combine work that incentives for business to create new jobs…then you can perhaps dull some of this pain for a few years with some federal investment but in the end we are going into a different economy and this team [Obama’s economic team] is going to have to come up with a solution to that as well.”

The problem with Velshi’s explanation is that it’s highly unpopular. Some recent opinion surveys show that 62% of the country is supports government intervention into the economy, but 53% think that a government bail-out of the financial institutions would cause a hardship for taxpayers. There are much more popular incentives for business. Providing public services such as universal health care would also inject funds into the economy. Business will adapt to what ever system of economic stimulation is implemented, you don’t have to cater to them as Velshi is insisting.

Los Angeles Times avoids important details on McCain advisor

On Wednesday August 6, 2008, The Los Angeles Times ran a front page piece entitled, An ousted pioneer explores a new trail, on the female advisor and surrogate for the McCain Campaign—who is “famous for breaking glass ceilings”—former CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP), Carly Fiorina. The article begins with Fiorina as a championed "self-described change-warrior.” Since the presidential campaigns began, 'change' has become a popular mantra, and the country has demonstrated in recent polls that it wants change. Earlier this year a CBS Poll showed that eighty-one percent of respondents think that the country is on the wrong track (CBS).

But is the change that Fiorina represents the kind of change that the population is looking for from a new president? By September 2001, HP, under the leadership of Fiorina, had fired 25,700 workers (Guardian). During her tenure at HP she cut more than 20,000 jobs, according to The Times article, and after the job cuts Fiorina enjoyed a pay increase of 231 percent to $4.1 million. (Guardian) These jobs cuts were during a time of great prosperity for HP; from 1999 -2000 their profits almost tripled from $1.319 billion to $3.697 billion (Fortune). In 2004 HP nearly doubled its lobbying budget to $734,000 (News Max). The goal: to get legislation passed that would lower HP taxes, and it worked. Legislation was passed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 32% saving HP millions (WP).

Fiorina’s leadership at HP actually represents the opposite kind of change that the country is looking for. According to a Harris Poll survey in 2007, 84% of the country believes that "big companies have too much power and influence in Washington" (Harris). Another poll, conducted by CBS News, found that 69% of the population thought that outsourcing hurt the economy more than helped it (CBS). But The Times article barely mentions this conflict of interest. Most of the criticism of Fiorina is how her tenure at HP affected the company’s ownership and profitability not on broad economic issues, issues that have become a top concern for the country.

The Times article actually claims that, “her business resume bolsters his economic credentials." But the article also mentions that “Fiorina serves several roles in shaping the candidate’s image.” For the corporate owned media, candidates that have the economic credentials are ones that have “change warriors” shaping their image; the candidate’s image is sold to the population because you can’t sell their economic policies.

Los Angeles Times runs puff piece for president of South American police state

On July 9, 2008, an article appeared in The Los Angeles Times about Colombian president Alvaro Uribe entitled, Uribe's rising popularity fuels prospects of 3rd term. From the start, the article reads like a personal ad for the South American strongman. For example, the writers set the tone with the following description: “A seemly humorless workaholic...the thin and bespectacled Uribe could be mistaken for an accountant or professor. But in places such as Aguadas, the no-nonsense Harvard-educated lawyer is widely admired.” The article also explains that Uribe has “brought Columbia back from the abyss of violence and despair."

But assassinations of union activists doubled in his first year in office and have stayed elevated throughout his presidency. More than half of union activists murdered are murdered in Colombia. USLEAP These assassinations are almost always linked to paramilitary groups, 'death squads' as they're known in Latin America. While governor of Antioquia, Uribe openly supported the formation of Convivir (an association of Columbian paramilitary groups). But Convivir quickly became controversial for allegations of targeting civilians. In 1998, Human Rights Watch reported that Convivir and other similar groups, “dangerously blur the distinction between civilians and combatants,” and that, “Several Convivirs have taken a direct role in hostilities in close coordination with the army and police and have committed serious violations.” HRW Three years later, the Constitutional Court of Columbia ruled that Convivir could no longer obtain military grade weapons (issued by the Colombian government), and were barred from collecting intelligence for security forces. HRW Despite the court’s ruling, Uribe has maintained strong support for paramilitaries into his presidency, and under his administration the courts have granted immunity for members of the military that are connected with these types of crimes. In addition to the president’s support, his cousin and close ally, Senator Mario Uribe, was arrested for ties to paramilitary death squads in April of this year. WP The Times article, just three months after the fact, leaves this out.

The article claims that Uribe has an eighty percent approval rating, and that “Uribe’s domestic support is founded on building up the security forces”, like Convivir, “and restoring some measure of law and order.” But for the poor in Colombia, “law and order” has meant record levels of human rights abuses, extortion, a high rate of incarceration, and the eviction of civilians off of land for commercial interests. Columbia has more than 3 million internally displaced people, which is the second highest in the world, just behind Sudan. Sixty percent of those internal refugees have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of economic importance, such as mineral, agricultural, oil or other commercial interests. AI The paramilitary groups that initiate this brand of "law and order" are largely propped up by US aid. An estimated US$616 million of the $756 million of US aid for Colombia is for military expenditures. CI The LA Times is consistent in leaving its readers in the dark about these details. As a matter of fact, the article’s harshest criticism is that, “To his detractors, Uribe is a polarizing figure who brooks no dissent. He labeled Ivan Cepeda, son of a murdered senator [sic] who leads a nationwide network of victims groups, a terrorist.” As a side note, this is the first time to my recollection that an organization of the corporate media has confessed that people are branded as terrorists by governments strictly for political purposes, but the criticism is still small potatoes for such a tyrant.

When the article mentions “allegations of electoral bribery” and “extrajudicial slayings” in Colombia, the Times’ reporters contend: “Such issues continue to impede a US-Columbia free trade deal, a priority for Uribe and the Bush administration.” However, problems such as extrajudicial slayings typically do not impede “free trade deals”, but are essential for their passage and implementation because of how opposed the population is to them. The long history of violence associated with these policies goes clear back to the Pinochet Regime, in Chile. In that instance, on September 11, 1973, the populist, and democratically elected president Salvador Allende was violently overthrown in a military coup that killed many civilians and set the presidential palace ablaze. The national parliament was dismissed, political parties were banned, the constitution was torn to shreds and the military arrested so many Chileans that they filled the new prison: the sports stadium in Santiago Women were even barred from wearing pants in public.

Typically, the formula for such ‘free trade’ policies is to render an otherwise active and well connected population into passivity by shock with swift violence and repression; then, before the population can regain its bearings, pass policies like the aforementioned "free trade deal". Colombia is another example that violence and disorder is not a disruption to, but the essence of, such 'free trade' policies. The necessity for the violence and repression comes from the unpopularity of these ‘free trade’ policies, especially, in regions where there is a strong social network of community and labour organizations-like in South America. Most of the mainstream media’s coverage is void of mention of just how adverse populations are to this topic.

In examining this “free trade agreement”, it’s not hard to see why Colombians would oppose it. The agreement, HR5724, was introduced to the House of Representatives on April 7, 2008, and it states that the purpose of said legislation is, "to establish free trade between the United States and Colombia through the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods and services and to investment”. The agreement also states that in the event of a dispute pertaining to the terms of the agreement that the authority of the US would precede any other (Colombian or otherwise). LOC This means that if Colombians are barred from forming laws, contracts or agreements that are in violation of this agreement, only US lawmakers have the ability to break the agreement. The legislation also voids any protection of US tariffs for Colombian exports. But one of the biggest goals of this agreement is to “eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods immediately and 100 percent over time.” WH Such trade policies would be an economic disaster for workers and small business that produce goods in Colombia. Multinational corporations would crush Colombian businesses that tried to compete with the flood of cheap US exports to Colombia. The reason for this is the large subsidies doled out to multinational corporations and their ability to temporarily implement drastic price reductions-until the competition has vanished and workers are reduced to slaves. The lack of support from the Colombian population on this matter is nothing unique. The US has become even more wary of ‘free trade’ policies. According to an opinion poll conducted by Rasmussen 56% of the American public thinks that NATA should be renegotiated while 14% supported the agreement. Ras

But despite the destructive and repressive measures of Uribe, there is progress in the region. There are large, and now well established, labour and community movements aimed precisely at resisting these policies and forming new democratic organizations from the ground up. These institutions have not only been responsible for the rising standard of living and the freedom from the military juntas, but offer a more effective counterweight to conventional power structures. The poor in Latin America have better access to medical care and educational standards are increasing, some of those responsible for the horrible crimes of the past are starting to be held accountable, and there has even been headway towards trade alliances (similar to the EU). Such alliances would give more empowerment to workers, small business, indigenous communities and grass roots community organizations. In neigboring Venezuela and Ecuador there has been progress as well. In Venezuela the popular movements have greatly increased medical care and education for the poor. In fact according the Human Development Index (a United Nations report that gives ratings to countries based general health and educational standards); the two countries were only beat by Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Cuba in Latin America. HDI Another milestone in the region, was that the government of Ecuador set a condition on the renewal of a lease with the US military to use one of its airbases (the last military based used by the US in South America). The condition: that Ecuador is able to lease a military base in Miami from the US government-so far no deal. These changes have occurred in a relatively small period; just twenty years ago most of Latin America was ruled by brutal, military governments that shut most of the population out of, not only policy making, but the social and cultural arena as well. Today more democratic forms of government are sweeping Latin America far too fast for the ‘free trade’ agenda.

LA Times allows Turkish officials and military to write article during crucial period

This article, from the October 22, 2007 Los Angeles Times, titled, “Turkey Threatens Incursion after Kurds Kill 12 Troops”.
The information that appears in the title, “12 troops killed by Kurds”, is provided by the Turkish military, the article later states. Wording the title in this manner fosters an impression that the statement is an established fact without giving the readership consideration of the source. This gives the Turkish military the biggest privilege of propagating at readers in the most read line of the article. If the Times had alluded to the fact that the information was provided by the Turkish Military within the title it would allow the readership an opportunity to decide for them selves how to feel about it.
The cause of the bias in this article is clear once one takes a look at the source of the information. All but two of the first twelve paragraphs contain either a Turkish official or military source; none of them contain a PKK or Kurdish source. There are eighteen citations in this article; thirteen of which are Turkish officials, military, or news media. Most of the remaining five citations are also governmental sources, from Iraq and the US, which means that sixteen out of eighteen citations are government sources. The heavy reliance on governmental sources frames every point in the first half of the article towards a more sympathetic view of that government's objectives. When Turkish and US officials are cited they “say”, “ask” or “remind”. But when a PKK spokesperson is cited he “claims” and even in the same paragraph the “claim” is rebottled with another Turkish official “saying” something. This subtle difference suggests more suspicion with the PKK sources than with the Turkish or US ones. Why should the readers assume a less critical standpoint with Turkish or US citations than with the ones from the PKK?
The article also offers nothing as far as a historical perspective of the conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurds. How is it possible to understand any current events without some historical gauge? Explaining that there exists large inequities between the Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey would help people understand the grievance that the Kurds have with the Turkish government. For example, it is illegal to speak Kurdish, to celebrate or even acknowledge Kurdish culture and customs in Turkey. Many locally elected officials in Turkey have been removed from power because of this, even when the local population is overwhelmingly Kurdish. It is even illegal to give a child a Kurdish name. Mentioning these inconvenient truths might also help people understand how serious the Turkish officials are when they say that they would “pay any price” to protect their citizens, but not even hint towards equal rights, public apology (for past abuses), or political recognition of the Kurdish Turks. This bias goes beyond merely suggestion. This shows that the Times would rather its readers bolster attitudes towards the conflict that are not just biased, but are out of pure ignorance than, offer some explanation as to why there is bitterness and resistance among the Kurds in the region.
The article also states, pointy, that, “the attacks, by the PKK, intensified pressure on the Turkish government to move against the rebels”. This comment is another example of the Times drawing conclusions for their readers. Shouldn’t the reader be left to decide if the attack puts pressure on the Turkish government? This comment is also not followed by any sort of explanation as to why the Turkish government would be pressured. And pressured by whom? The population, the business, its neighbors, its population?
Later the article states, “By threatening to invade, Turkey is hoping to force the U.S., especially, to crack down on the Kurdish rebels”. If Turkish officials made this statement then, why isn’t it quoted? By not putting a statement in quotation marks the Times is simply adopting what officials say as if it is undisputable fact. If the officials did not state this, then either the Times writers have special powers that allow them to know what foreign government officials are hoping, or they are again drawing conclusions for their readers. Assuming the latter, since the statement is not in quotes and I doubt the Times writers have special powers, why would it be important for the writers to convey what they think the Turkish government’s hopes are? Is this news? Or are the Times writers simply not letting their readers connect the dots on their own?
Finally the most glaring aspect of this article is its failure to warn the readers of any of the humanitarian consequences of a military invasion. When articles mostly consist of governmental citations, especially from the government that is planning the invasion, the information is most likely not going to indicate the horror and misery of its policies. This view, I believe, is the most vital because without knowing the consequences of an action how can you accurately asses it. A story like this is crucial because Turkey is a long time ally of The United States and the public attitudes of either nation can have a great impact on whether Turkey invades, and causes injury, death, and destruction for tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

An Advertisement for Privatization Passes for News at LA Times

This article, titled, "An Experiment in Government", by Jenny Jarvie, from The Los Angeles Times August 19, 2007, is about how the outskirts of Atlanta Ga., in Fulton County, have been incorporating into their own cities the last two years. Most of the article is devoted to the privatization of city services instead of having traditional public institutions. For example, the article cites that county commissioners are considering replacing the Sheriff’s Department with a privately contracted jailer.
Throughout the article there is an overwhelming bias as the article only describes the moves toward incorporation as positive, for example, “For 30 years, residents of Sandy Springs (incorporated in 2005) fought a Democratic-controlled Legislature for city hood, with legislators refusing to change a law that made it difficult for new cities to be formed”, and describing the incorporation of an affluent northern community as “wining its independence in 2005”. The article also only describes the county government in negative terms, for instance, “Many who support the city hood and privatization movement say it cannot be less dysfunctional than Fulton County government has been”, but Jarvie does not indicate what “many” represents. As a matter of fact, the only quotations given from the “960,000” Fulton County residents are The Sandy Springs mayor, Eva Galambos and Interim Manager, Oliver Porter. The article begins by citing Sandy Springs’ mayor, Eva Galambos, saying that there are “almost three times as many police officers now than two years ago.”, and starts the Porter quotation with “Some are scathing”.
To add to the bias the only criticisms offered are “Many say it is too early to determine the success of the movement away from county government”, and “Some fear that private companies would be too stringent in enforcing codes and ordinances”. The article never mentions any class perspectives of privatizing the local services, For instance, privatization usually entails replacing public workers with private (sometimes temporary) workers. Which means lower wages, less benefits, the exemption of labor rights (temporary employment), less chance of equal opportunity, and less job security. This is one method of transferring public revenue from the poor and working class to the upper classes. Also privatization, despite all the talk about it being more efficient, is usually more expensive, since special interests usually out-weight picketing the most competitive bid.
The article also doesn’t point out that privatization of public services can take a voice away from the average citizen. In some instances private enterprise is exempt from observing individual rights and government oversights. A private company may not have to disclose information to the public about local issues. Private companies also have to consistently strive for larger profits this means even if expenditures aren’t cut; residents might see more limited services. For example if too few residents use public transportation at certain hours a private company might cut the service in order to maintain or boost profits. The outcome is that the public are treated more like consumers than citizens.
An example of privatization vs. local government run services is the energy deregulation in California signed by Former Governor Pete Wilson in 1996, but did not materialize until 2000. In 2000 California started to see rolling black outs, and sky rocketing energy rates, except for The City of Los Angeles which has kept its utilities public. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the crisis was created by the private energy companies for market manipulation. By the end of the “crisis” the energy companies declared bankruptcy and lay off hundreds of workers.
Jarvie does briefly mention another issue. That separating more affluent areas into independent cities redistributes tax revenue from poorer areas to more affluent areas: increasing tax burden on the poor and working class while limiting public benefits and services to them. Another name for this redistribution that the article doesn’t utter is Urban Sprawl. Examples of it can be seen all over the United States and its affects on the majority the population have been devastating, but you can’t find that side of the story in The Los Angeles Times.
To sum privatization up you have poor and working class residents possibly paying higher local taxes for substandard services provided by other poor or working class residents with lower income jobs all so that private firms can make a profit at the public’s expense.

Israel launches a terror attack, deemed by the Los Angeles Times as an airstrike

There was an article in today’s, October 28, 2005 Los Angeles Times about an Israeli missile strike on a civilians in the Gaza Strip.
The first paragraph reads as follows:
“Israeli aircraft fired missiles Thursday night at a car carrying members of the Palestinian militant organization Islamic Jihad in the northern Gaza Strip, Killing all four men inside the vehicle and three civilian bystanders”. But four paragraphs later the article reads that one of the occupants of the car, killed by the missile attack, was identified by Palestinian sources and the Israeli army as Shadi Mohanna, who the Israeli army claimed was, “responsible for several murderous attacks”. The article then goes into great detail about a suicide bombing the previous day. Why would a story about a missile attack go into such detail about a completely different event without giving details about the original event. It seems as though the Los Angeles Times is going to great lengths to justify a missile strike on a civilian target by the Israeli army. Articles like these make the Los Angeles Times a propaganda tool for the Israeli army.

According to the article Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that military actions in response to the Hadera bombing, (previous day’s suicide bombing) would be “broad and unstinting, until they halt terrorism”. What irony, when you can justify the use of terrorism to “halt terrorism”. And is this the ‘free’ Gaza strip that the media was going on about two months ago. It seems that the state of Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip so that they could complain about the lack of security measures taken on by the Palestinian authority, and thus, justify more military action against the civilian population, and yet again pull the strings of tyranny even tighter on the Palestinian population. Not to mention putting the rest of the population in the region in great danger from the backlash of such military operations.