Reuters does criminally dishonest headline on Israeli response to hostile fire

The story:

Jihadis in Syria fire into Israel and Israel responds by destroying machine gun emplacements.

H/T Tundra T

How does Reuters spin the headline?

Israel fires into Syria after Golan attack on troops

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the first cabinet meeting of the 33rd Israeli government, in Jerusalem March 18, 2013. REUTERS/David Vaaknin/Pool

JERUSALEM | Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:07am EDT

(Reuters) – Israel said it fired into Syria on Sunday and destroyed a machinegun position in the Golan Heights from where shots had been fired at Israeli soldiers in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible for what a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said had been a deliberate attack on Israeli patrols in the occupied territory.

Click to continue:

It is stunning how the mass media manages to make it look like Israel is the aggressor when it is defending itself from aggression and usually with phenomenal restraint given all they did was destroy the equipment used to attack them.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic
This entry was posted in Attacks on Jews - Israelis, Israel, Media bias. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Reuters does criminally dishonest headline on Israeli response to hostile fire

  1. Softly Bob says:

    Israel will be fine if only they stopped bothering about what the World thinks about them. By and large they don’t but sometimes they do, but they really need to stop caring altogether. The idiots who despise them will continue to despise them no matter what they do, so they may as well do as they wish.
    They should also tell Obama to stick it.

  2. Truthiocity says:

    I see what you mean. Even though they describe the cause and the result, they ALWAYS describe the responce first when it’s Isreal responding.

    It’s done to leave an impression of Israeli aggression when the facts don’t support it. In a few days people will forget the specific details of the story but in the back of their minds will be the impression that Israel did something “first”.

    We saw an extreme version of this in action during the last flare up with Hamas. Even though the first stories to come out were of Israeli soldiers and civilians being hit by rockets, everyone forgot that when a few days later the news was reporting that “ISRAEL KILLS HAMAS LEADER (inresponcetorocketsfired)” – the result was that people were thinking (and I know this from conversations) Isreal started it by killing the Hamas leader.

    The stories they read said the opposite but presented the information out of chronological order so as to make people miss remember the chronology of the conflict.

    It is a very old and very sleazy trick.

    The headline could just as easily have been Israeli soldiers fired upon from across Syrian border. That’s the story. Israel just did what any country would do in the same situation – so that’s not the newsworthy part. What is news worthy is that soldiers who are not involved in the conflict were fired upon.

  3. Richard says:

    The left controls the MSM and is very antisemitic, they are going to continue their attacks on Israel until they are forced to stop.

  4. dodocanspell says:

    Strange that you guys see it from one angle and one angle only…. that of being on Israel’s side all the time and having to defend whatever Israel does.
    I see it as Israel now entering the club of those against Syria. Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other sunni nations along with UK, France and the USA are now the unlikely partners in their quest to destroy Syria and Assad and thus cripple Iran. Instead of taking Iran head-on they are going about it the round about way.
    I will come back and apologize to VladTepes if my observation does not hold true in the coming one year.

  5. Eeyore says:

    1. No need to apologize at all, right or wrong. My point was one of media bias, not defending Israel. When Bush was president I used to argue against rabid and fanatical anti-Bush people several times a week. Finally someone asked me why I was so pro-Bush. I answered that I wasn’t its just that the anti-Bush people invent stuff to hate him for.

    Had they asked, I could have listed a pile of my own complaints about him but I never got the chance because I was always busy defending him against fictions.

    Israel is pretty much the same.

    You may be right about the geopolitics of the area but I doubt Israel wants an unstable MB jihadi state on yet another border. But I bet Obama does.

  6. Truthiocity says:

    By the “other angle” I presume you mean the “angle” that assassinated Robert Kennedy and danced in the street on 9/11.

    It’s against Israel’s national interests to take any side whatsoever in these conflicts. Whichever side they assist will be damaged by that assistance because everyone will say they’re being controlled by DA JOOOOOZ.

    The US also would NOT want Isreal to participate for that reason. The only people who would want Israel to participate are the jihad terrorists, who would LOVE it if they could make people believe Israel is helping Assad.

Leave a Reply