Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood: “Since war in Gaza ended…Hamas has largely adhered to a ceasefire”

As Akus and I have pointed out, (here and here) Harriet Sherwood is truly gifted in the art of rhetorical obfuscation, a talent on display when she twice referred to rocket attacks from Gaza as “sporadic” – a truly surreal characterization of the 676 deadly projectiles fired at Israel in 2011 alone.

But, her latest incredulous report (Arab spring uprisings reveal rift in Hamas over conflict tactics), Jan 6, on claims made by some that Hamas is debating whether to focus on non-violent resistance, goes even further in running interference for the Islamist terrorist group.

In the penultimate paragraph, Sherwood writes.

Since the war in Gaza ended three years ago Hamas has largely adhered to a ceasefire, and has attempted to stop other militant groups from firing rockets into Israel. [emphasis mine]

While the implicit argument, that Hamas has been a force of peace, reasonableness and moderation in Gaza since the end of Cast Lead is absurd, her explicit claim that “Hamas has largely adhere to a ceasefire” is just patently untrue.

First, as I’ve noted previously, the group responsible for a large number of the 676 rocket attacks on Israel in 2011 (and over 1,000 since the end of Cast Lead in 2009) is referred to as Popular Resistance Committees (PRC).  And, per the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the PRC is funded and supported directly by Hamas, and essential serves as Hamas’ terrorist subcontractor.

Moreover, here are a few of the attacks directly attributed to Hamas – deadly assaults which are clearly inconsistent with “honoring the ceasefire”.

  • On September 3, 2009, during a 24-hour period, seven mortar shells were fired, four at an IDF force near the security fence and three at communities in the western Negev. The Iz a-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military-terrorist wing, claimed responsibility for the attacks.
  • During the week of March 17-23, 2009, three mortar shells were fired at IDF forces operating along the border security fence. Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Further, Hamas celebrated the “successful” April 17th attack which killed Daniel Vilfic, posting this video on their website.

(Note: Video ends after first 40 sec.)

As I observed recently, Hamas is quite open in expressing pride whenever they kill an Israeli Jew, and even bragged on Twitter (on the occasion of the group’s 24th anniversary) that they’ve murdered, to date, 1365 “Zionists”.

There are some Guardian reports on terrorist attacks from Gaza which employ language that obscures cause and effect, and others which “contextualize” attacks in a way which dehumanize the Israeli victims.

Sherwood’s latest report, however, stating that Hamas has “largely adhered to a ceasefire” isn’t merely another example of such rhetorical obfuscation or moral inversion.

It’s simply a lie.

14 replies »

  1. It’s a legitimate question to ask the Guardian: Does Hamas send it money to write this tripe?

  2. I was a little confused about the bullet about the two soldiers killed “near the Kissufim crossing in the central Gaza Strip.” The bullet makes it sound as if they were *inside* the Strip at the time. I had to check Google maps to find that the Kissufim crossing is, in fact, in Israel. A minor rewording might be in order.

  3. Did she mention Haniyeh’s Dec 26 message?

    [“The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]… We won’t relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine.”

    He also promised that Hamas will “lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine – all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allah Akbar and praise Allah.”]

    I tried to post that on the thread below Ben White’s New Statesman’s article on the IDF’s Dec 28 warning of future hostilities.

    Naturally he declined to publish it.

  4. About time Harriet Sherwood adhered to the truth.She wouldn’t know truth if it bit her ample bum ……

  5. It’s not whether she believes it or not and it’s not whether the Guardian believes it or not, it’s that to their readership (incredibly) every word written in the Guardian not under the name of an Israeli or Nick Cohen, is taken as the truth.

    If Sherwood writes it, fingers & toes crossed, and if the Guardian publishes it, they believe it. They still believe in the Jenin Massacre and the Goldstone commission screed. Once learned, never unlearned.

  6. Not had time to pick lots of holes in the article, but after reading a few lines, here’s one to get you started:

    “the PRC is funded and supported directly by Hamas”

    Not according to the linked ITIC article it isn’t.

      • One more of dubitant’s
        Vituperative rants.
        The scroll-down key enchants;
        Dubitant’s scribbling is pants.

  7. Is it really true that the Arab League have asked Hamas to lend their angelic touch to bring peace to Syria?