The Western Wall As A symbol for Western Media Bias

I've heard and read a lot about the Western Wall Plaza but this is remarkable:

Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.
My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.

That was from an interview with  Lara Logan, foreign correspondent for CBS’s 60 Minutes.

Her interviewee 

characterized U.S. news media as “absurdly left-leaning” and supportive of Democrats, further describing the status quo of American news media’s left-wing and partisan Democrat biases as a “huge f***ing problem” and “disaster for this country.”

and

Logan concurred, “I agree with that. That’s true.” She described U.S. and international news media as “mostly liberal,” adding, “most” journalists are left.
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” assessed Logan.

Shall we pray?

^ 

New York Times An Agent for Peace Now's Obfuscation

Obfuscation, we all should know, is

the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language

or making

something less clear and harder to understand, especially intentionally

Here is from the website of Americans for Peace Now

The headline's exact wording:

In West Bank, 99.7% of Public Land Grants by Israel Go to Settlers

 Here's a comment of mine at Twitter:

How much of 100% is Area A & B? Area C under full Israeli administration is only 60% of JS/WB & within that are Arab villages.Well, maybe it is confusing for some.

Another:

Another point to the story:"Israel has marked out hundreds of thousands of acres as public land".No. State land status existed since at least 1858 & 1873 Ottoman laws. Israel just confirms that. And "state" means "government", not State of Israel". A bit confusing for sure.

Added:

How much state land was awarded to Jews 

during 1948-1967?

From Lenny Ben-David. 

 I asked the reporter:

You quote in your story Shawan Jabarin. Is he the same Jabarin who was convicted for PFLP activities some years ago?

And, of course, the Mandate's Article 6 is not included (nor a response from a Yesha Council figure and if they refused, that should have been noted):

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

You've been obfuscated by the New York Times in league with Peace Now.

And an Arab former terrorist.

__________

Elie Pieprz tweets:

No attempt to get response from @odedrevivi or the federal gvt No context of Area A & B under complete PA municipal control 88% of residents are Pal? Really? There are 3.6M Pals in WB?No context of Area A & B under complete PA municipal control88% of residents are Pal? Really? There are 3.6M Pals in WB?

Another.

__________

Received regarding the population stats therein:

the PA always insists on the largest possible figure for the settler population, and OCHA only managed to scrape together a Palestinian population of less than 300,000 for area C by including Palestinian residents of A and B whose municipalities cross over in any part with area C. (Of those, only 67,102 live in municipalities that are entirely in area C, while most live in municipalities whose land is majority areas A/B). The EU estimate of settler population last year was 399,000.
 If you cut the settler population in half, or doubled the Palestinian population of area C, Palestinians would still be in the minority.

^

"Unrest"

Ever notice how key terms are employed by the media to prime you to think immediately that Israel is bad, is doing something bad and that Israel's enemies are somehow just normally doing what they should (not) be doing?

Like "Jews storm the Temple Mount".

Here's another:

After the announcement of Trump regarding his decision to move the embassy, "unrest" was also prophesied.

It didn't happen.

Not that it won't but journos writing this way sometimes actually are the cause of violence.

After all, if Arabs read what's expected of them, some might just take the hint.

^

Use of Quotations Marks

Dov Lieber tweeted this news alert on the group of 13 year old Jewish children, actually, some, siblings, much younger, accompanied by two adults who were attacked by scores of Arabs while hiking:

Queried why he employed quotation marks, he replied

At the time it wasn't clear who was there. Army said hikers. Simple.

I'm confused and even dumbfounded.

Of all the words, he chose to bracket in scare quotes, why hikers?

He could have selected shot, or throwing rocks, responded or even dead.

Scare quotes, as The Atlantic clarified for those who didn't know, are used

to make clear that [the word bracketed] is not just a term of discussion, but a term of contention: Do not, the floating commas make clear, take this at face value...framed facts themselves as matters of debate, to do a lot of heavy lifting—not just as indications of words that are spoken, but as indications of words that are doubted. 

And the article continues so

Scare quotes (also known, even more colorfully, as “shudder quotes” and “sneer quotes”)...do precisely the opposite of what quotation marks are supposed to do: They signal irony, and uncertainty. They suggest words that don’t quite mean what they claim to. “Question,” they say. “Doubt,” they dare... “a writer’s assault on his or her own words.” They signal—really, they celebrate—epistemic uncertainty. They take common ground and suggest that it might, but only just “might,” be made of quicksand.

Maybe some day, all "journalists" will have their names bracketed in scare quotes?

^

Boats Sink; People Drown

Just received:

Ref: 78/2017
Date: 18 October 2017
Time: 11:30 GMT             

Israeli Naval Forces Destroy and Drown Palestinian Fishing Boat off Beir Lahia Shore

Israeli gunboats fired shells at a Palestinian fishing boat sailing within 2.5 nautical miles.  As a result, the boat was destroyed and drowned in the Sea.  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) monitored that Israeli forces have escalated their attacks against Palestinian fishermen despite expanding the allowed fishing area from 6 to 9 nautical miles.  This proves that Israel continues its policy of targeting fishermen and their livelihoods.

As we all know, people drown and boats sink.

So, the question is;

did the copywriter make a simple English-language mistake?

or, did he/she purposefully utilize a verb which would make you think that a human being drowned?

^ 

Just a Bit of Media Bias

Can you imagine if 26 parliamentarians from 14 different countries toured Samaria under the tutelage of Peace Now, or Breaking the Silence or B'tselem and they released a statement denouncing the Jewish communities and condemning the 'occupation' what the media response would be?

And that they released a castigating declaration against Israel's government's policies in the territories and handed it to a government minister.

Front page headline in Haaretz, I'd guess.

Large picture in Yedioth Ahronot.

Even Israel Hayom would note it.

After all, coming from the US, Australia, South Africa, Guatemala and several countries in Europe, that would be news.

But that isn't what happened.

What did happen was this, as reported in the Times of Israel:

A group of lawmakers from 14 countries visited the northern West Bank on Sunday in a show of solidarity with Israel, as the head of the settlement movement praised US President Donald Trump...
The lawmakers were in the country for the annual Israel Allies Foundation conference, which is co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress and has for years brought Christian and Jewish pro-Israeli lawmakers from various countries to the Holy Land during Sukkot, the festival during which, according to Jewish tradition, the nations of the world ascend to Jerusalem.
Alan Clemmons, a Republican member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, told the other lawmakers that the Israel boycott movement is “financial terrorism.”
“Israel is the occupier of no one’s land other than the land that God promised to the people of Israel,” he said.

Of course, Arutz 7 in Hebrew posted it, as expected, with a video of Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipy Hotovely speaking.   And here is an extract from Arutz 7 in English:

Twenty-six parliamentarians from around the world on Monday signed a statement that the Jewish people have a legal right to sovereignty over all of the land of Israel, and a statement that anti-Zionism is an expression of anti-Semitism."We want to reject all declarations that seek to negate the connection of the Jewish people to Israel and Jerusalem, as well as the misrepresentation of the State of Israel as an occupier, and to emphasize the anti-Semitic character of the misnamed 'anti-Zionism," the parliamentarians wrote."We call upon governments, institutions and leaders around the world to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism used by the US State Department and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has been approved by many European countries and recognizes that anti-Zionism is an expression which can be used in place of anti-Semitism."We support the State of Israel and recognize the right of the Jewish people, including the rights to sovereignty and self-defense in all its lands and territory, while recognizing the need of all religions for a strong and united Israel, with Jerusalem as its eternal and united capital.

It related that MK Gila Gamliel (Likud) received the position paper from the parliamentarians.

When you read mainstream Israeli media, you are a media consumer who is defrauded. The news you receive is biased, unbalanced, unfair, non-pluralistic and lacking in the really important facts, especially on the issue of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.

I was informed, though, that Yaakov Ahimeir, host of "Seeing the World" Saturday evening news program, was present and recorded an interview.  I hope it will be aired.

I searched but didn't find reports in the foreign media as well.

You have been warned about Israel media bias.

_________

P.S.    Middle East Monitor now has a story. ^

When the Mufti Had a NYTimes Problem

Who ever said the New York Times was always pro-Arab?

Jerusalem Grand Mufti Makes Sensational Attack on American Press
Jerusalem (Oct. 16)

The Arab newspaper “Felestin,” controlled by the Jerusalem Grand Mufti, made a sensational onslaught on American newspapers yesterday, singling out the “New York Times.” The paper asked: “Is there no honesty in the American press?”

The Mufti denied interviews with Joseph Levy, “New York Times” correspondent, Ketchum of the “London Daily Express,” and Pierre Van Paassen, representative of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Mufti charges misrepresentation and distortion, but makes no specific references. Of his interview with Mr. Van Paassen, the Mufti wrote in the English edition of the “Felestin” that it was merely an informal talk.

Mr. Van Paassen stated before his departure that when he called on the Mufti for the interview, the head of the Moslem Supreme Council offered him inducements, including women, if he would take the Mufti’s side and color the news according to his personal views and ambitions.

^

New? Really?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Netanyahu Pushes New West Bank Settlement  Construction is intended to house families evicted from Amona outpost

Why "new"?

Why not a "replacement" community?

And it is within a bloc of communities: Shiloh, Achiyah, Esh Kodesh, Adei-Ad & Keida.  And the site, currently Geulat Tzion, has been inhabited for a while by a few families and all its land is state land, not private, officially declared so three decades ago.

EP pointed out to me that almost all the headlines of the main media outlets are that Israel 'approves first new settlement in 20 years' (here: here; here; here; here; here; here;).

But haven't we been informed for years that there were thousands of "new settlements" every week - via Peace Now, etc.?

^

New Media Award Category: Tuchus Backwards Headline

From the London Times:

Er, who stormed the synagogue?

^

Wondering About NYTimes Terminology

I wondered after reading this in the New York Times:

“Altogether, we are moving on a very good vector. We are close to half a million people in Judea and Samaria,” said Shilo Adler, the head of the Yesha Council advocacy group, using biblical names for the West Bank."

if, when the NYT quotes someone who says "in the West Bank", it will add

"using the 1950 terminology of Jordan when it illegally annexed the region"

^

Let's Pretend to Be a Journalist

I see/receive this item:

NABLUS, October 10, 2016 (WAFA) – Israeli settlers on Monday attacked Palestinians harvesting olives near the village of Qaryout, south of Nablus, according to local sources.  Ghassan Daghlas, who monitors settlement activities in the north of the West Bank, told WAFA that dozens of Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian olive pickers and smashed the windshields of their vehicles.

If I am here more than a year or so, this is what I should be doing:

a) call up Daghlas for more details.

b) in checking back, I realize that the man has lied and/or exaggerated in the past.

c) to be careful, I ask for a picture or the name of a contact on the site to speak with.

d) I check the map after asking him exactly which grove was the site of the reported violence.

e) I call up local health services and ask, like I do with Israel's Magen Adom, for details.

f) I call up someone from either Shiloh or Eli which are the two closest Jewish communities or, if I have actually done item "d", I can see which community is closest, maybe Achiyah, and call there.

g) if I do not have contacts there, because I haven't developed any, I call up Miri who is the foreign media spokesperson, actually, Director, International Desk, Binyamin Regional Council, and make sure I got a reaction/response/clarification and make sure to include that in my report.

h) if I have the time, realizing that a report like this falls into the annual "olive harvesters attacked by Jews" template and even may be an attempt to draw attention away from more serious Arab terror acts, I'd drive out there.  I'd even take the opportunity to talk about the "new settlement" in the Shiloh Bloc the State Department attacked, viciously, and expand the story.

Well, let's wait and see what happens.

__________________

UPDATE

Miri told me our emergency HQ hadn't heard anything.

I see now a clip of a smashed car in Qaryut.  Seems in the village.

From an olive grove.

___________________

NEW UPDATE

Ma'an claims Eli residents involved.


^

The Guardian is On Guard and Censorious

I posted a comment to this op-ed in The Guardian, entitled

Don't worry! Clinton and Trump are going to fix Israel/Palestine 

by Moustafa Bayoumi, a student of Edward Said.

Bayoumi is "an award-winning writer, and associate professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York" according to his bio at the paper.

I received this reply in less than an hour and a half:-

Hi YMedad,
We wanted to let you know that a comment of yours has been removed from theguardian.com because it was flagged by the moderation team as:
    *Off topic*
What is on topic is what is included in the article, so what is off-topic is decided on an article-by-article basis depending on the subject and will be enforced more scrupulously on sensitive subjects. Posts which could derail the conversation by leading it away from the topic of the article including ‘whataboutery’ will be removed.
A full description of our community standards can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/community-standards.
Warning: Those who seriously, persistently or wilfully ignore the community standards, participation guidelines or terms and conditions will have their posting privileges for all the Guardian community areas withdrawn.
If you have any queries about this decision you can contact the Moderation team directly (details can be found on the Community Standards page).
Guardian Moderation Team

This was my comment:

This assertion raises some problems: "the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands will turn 50 years old."
a) can we understand that the writer rejects the normative Arab position that actually all of Israel is occupying "Palestinian land", as when in 1964, three years before the Six Days War, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded? Or as in the Hamas Charter that all of "Palestine: is waqf territory?
b) If they are Palestinian lands, does that mean that Jews cannot reside on these lands if they have bought them, either pre-1948 or post -1967?
c) were those lands "Palestinian" even before the country was first termed "Palestine" by the Romans? and before, were they not Judean lands?
d) did Arabs occupy those lands in 638 CE?
e) when Jordan occupied them during 1949-1967, who was oppressing the Arabs then? Why was there no BDS movement or the like?
f) just as an aside, what is the difference, in the sense of nationality identity, between an Arab in Israel, in Judea & Samaria, aka the 'West Bank' and the Arab in Jordan (besides the fact that the Hashemite family only arrive in Jordan in November 1920 from Saudi Arabia)?

Okay, I am flummoxed and nonplussed.

I think the writer needs to clarify for his audience anything he writes.  I think what he writes is legitimate for criticism.  Indeed, the whole topic of "occupation" hinges on whether we know what he really means and if any diplomatic move will end the conflict.  If we can't assure our mutual understanding of the core issues, what use is arguing over how to solve them?

In 2014, Bayoumi was quoted as saying at a guest lecture at Colgate that there was a

need to reset the terms of the dialogue at an institutional level and to find “solutions that guarantee individual and communal rights to all and find justice for all Israelis and Palestinians, including those Palestinians who are the ancestors of those displaced in 1948.”

So, indeed, my points (a) and (c) are quite on-topic.

If I had commented on this section of his:

In fact, there are 2,898,927 Palestinians living in the West Bank, 1,850,559 in the Gaza Strip, 1,471,201 in Israel,

by writing that (a) his number for "West Bank" Arab residents is close to a million off or that (b) if there are "Palestinians" in Israel then at least my point 'f' is quite on topic would that comment be allowed?

Or if I had commented on this section

According to the New York Times, there are now more than 350,000 settlers living in the West Bank and another 300,000 living in East Jerusalem, 

by pointing out that (a) that quote if one-and-one-half year's old and that (b) the numbers are wrong [there are 460,000 Jews residing in Judea and Samaria and 210,000 in Jerusalem's post-1967 neighborhoods] would that be off-topic as well?

If I would have commented on this bit:

In fact, slim majorities of both Palestinians and Israelis still support a two-state solution

by pointing out that a poll in March, a half-year earlier had 69% Palestinian Arab support and that his poll had but 51% in favor which is quite a dramatic drop and does not augur well, would that have been off=topic?

If his details are wrong or questionable or fudged or plain misrepresentations, how can his conclusions be "on-topic"?

Or, to phrase it differently, why is The Guardian so zealous in its censorship?

^

The NYTimes Terms It "Quietly"

First, local patriotism:

The outposts are strategically located alongside more than 120 settlements that were formally approved by Israel, and are home to a fraction of the West Bank’s 350,000 Jewish settlers.

One group stretches east of Shilo, like beads on a chain: Shvut Rahel, Adei Ad, Ahiya, Kida, Esh Kodesh. These outposts command the hilltops between Palestinian villages like Qusra, Jalud, Al-Mughayyer and Duma, the scene of last year’s deadly arson attack in which one young Israeli has been charged with murder and another with conspiracy.

Rabbah Hazameh, a Palestinian whose family owns olive orchards and agricultural fields in the area, said that settlers prevented him and his relatives from working their land close to Adei Ad, and that trees had been damaged and poisoned [untrue]. He said that his uncle had submitted 86 complaints to the Israeli police over the years, but “nothing happened.” [Jewish trees were damaged and cut down]

While most of the world considers all of these settlements a violation of international law, Israel itself makes distinctions, including whether they sit on privately owned Palestinian land and whether they had government approval for construction.

Now, back to the main theme via the story's headline:

Israel Quietly Legalizes Pirate

Outposts in the West Bank

Quietly?

Oh, come on.

It's been in the media for months and more.

Earlier this month.

In July in Haaretz (how could she have missed that?).

June.

In March, Mondoweiss published a Yesh Din report on 'kosherization' which was published in February.

In August 2015, even the UN discussed it (see Section B).

In April 2015, sixteen months ago, we all read this at the +972 website:

In 2011 there was a change in the State’s position, when it told the courts that intends to pursue a course of partial enforcement. It would remove outposts built on private land, but will examine the possibility of legalizing those built on public land (which it prefers to call “state land” in order to create the impression that it owns them).
But this position also changed. In 2012, the government ordered the formation of the Levi Commission. It ruled that the outposts should be legalized, while rejecting the Partition Decision of 1947 and returning to the Balfour Declaration.

Quietly? Like in a conspiracy? Secretively?

In Israel?!

NYT, what were you thinking?

___________

UPDATE

^

On Ruth Margalit's NYT Op-ed

In addition to our column (here) reacting to Ruth Margalit's hit-piece on Netanyahu, read:

ElderofZion

Liel Lebovitz

Ira Stoll

This letter:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Spokesman, on Press Freedom in Israel

AUG. 1, 2016

To the Editor:

Ruth Margalit’s argument that Israel’s prime minister is taking control of the press (“How Netanyahu Is Crushing Israel’s Free Press,” Sunday Review, July 31) is absurd. Anyone who spends a day in Israel knows that the Israeli press does not pull any punches when it comes to the prime minister, and this is not about to change.

Ms. Margalit’s attack obscures the real story: A longstanding media monopoly in Israel with one-sided views seeks to shut out alternative voices by stifling market competition that would give choices to viewers and readers.

The introduction of the newspaper Israel Today broke this enduring monopoly in the print media and gave Israelis the same choice that readers have in other democracies.

Broadcast journalism reform in Israel remains well behind print. Israel has just two main television channels — and both espouse similar editorial views. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to introduce to the broadcast market the same reform that he introduced into other sectors of Israel’s economy with spectacular results: competition, the very opposite of control.

The opening of the media market is one of the healthiest things for Israeli democracy. Israelis should be able to vote with their remotes — just as Americans do.

DAVID KEYES
Jerusalem

The writer is a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu.

Another letter in the NYTimes:

Israel and Free Press Debated

AUG. 8, 2016

To the Editor:

Ruth Margalit’s Israel where the media is being “crushed” is simply one I don’t recognize (“Netanyahu crushed Israel’s free press,” Opinion, Aug. 1).

The day after her piece appeared, the left-wing daily Haaretz published a column by Gideon Levy entitled “Stop Living in Denial, Israel Is an Evil State.” Far from fearing a knock at the door in the middle of the night, Levy is one of the paper’s star columnists, and is translated into English for a global audience.

Margalit also dramatically overstates what she calls “the outsize influence” of the free newspaper Israel Hayom, owned by Sheldon Adelson. Circulation figures show that the paper has a 40 percent market share, but it’s very closely followed by Yediot Ahronot at 35 percent, which she admits has taken a “decidedly anti-Netanyahu line.” Left also unmentioned are the numerous other newspapers, radio stations and news websites, in Hebrew, Arabic and English, offering a multiplicity of views in Israel’s hotly contested public space.

Finally, Margalit undermines her own argument by quoting the popular host of a “60 Minutes”-style investigative program, who says that despite any pressure or attacks from the government: “Israeli media remains very critical, very aggressive ... It’s a kind of basic instinct that’s part of our DNA.”

That’s the true picture of Israel’s press.

GAVIN GROSS
Jerusalem

^

Arab Ritualistic Anti-Semitism and Defense Minister Lieberman

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman went to the Western Wall to proffer thanks and, perhaps, ask for guidance.

Here is how an Arab news agency reported the event:

In a provocative move, the War minister in the Israeli government, Avigdor Lieberman, on Tuesday morning, broke into the courtyards of Al-Aqsa mosque amid tight security of the occupying forces, and performed Talmudic rituals in what is called the Wailing Wall (the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque).

They even had an accompanying photograph to illustrate his provocative ritualistc act:

However, any simple Google search will reveal that that picture is from November 2013, following his acquittal on charges of fraud and breach of trust in a unanimous ruling by three judges having been accused of promoting a former diplomat who had passed him information about a criminal investigation into Lieberman's business dealings by the authorities in Belarus.

Here is a picture from two days ago:

I can only presume that in order to ramp up the anti-Semitic tone of their reporting, the editors looked for a more "provocative" look, one with him in a tallit, the ritual prayer shawl.

They really are sick, aren't they?  More Pallywood.

Not only is he not in any Al-Aqsa "courtyard", not only is the Western Wall the retaining wall of the Herodian expansion of the Temple Mount precincts but the tallit is not "Talmudic" not is the "ritual" he is performing "Talmudic" but quite Biblical.

But if they mentioned the Bible, they might find out that the city is not "Al-Quds" but Jerusalem and the country is not "Filastin" but Eretz-Yisrael.

As for Lieberman being a "War Minister" rather than a Defense Minister, it depends, I surmise, on what the Arabs want.

^

An Example of the New York Times' Subtle Bias

This New York Times story on a debate in Israel over the role of ‘People’s Army’ (pssst, Israel seems to be the only liberal democratic country whose cultured and educated elites, the media, the academia and the literati are pushing for a military coup in the name of ... democracy and liberalism) also carries a pic with the caption:

"Israeli girls at a traditional weapons display near a West Bank settlement on Israel’s Independence Day."

Here:

Those displays are done all over the country at an "Open Day" at army bases. This one happened to be in the "West Bank" but the implication of fascist militarization is imparted..

That's an example of the NYT's subtle anti-Israel bias.

P.S. A major player on media anti-Israel bias thinks:

"I don't see this as actionable."

Honest Reporting had another take.

^

But Why Are They Rare? And Why Not 'Allegedly'?

In the NYTimes, I read:

Israel struck at Hamas military bases in the Gaza Strip overnight, killing a 10-year-old boy and his 6-year-old sister, a Palestinian official said on Saturday. The airstrikes came after Palestinian militants fired rockets toward Israeli border communities late Friday. 

One of the airstrikes targeted a Hamas base in northwestern Gaza, and shrapnel hit a nearby home, killing the boy,..Suleiman Abu Khoussa, 50, the children’s father, said the family was sleeping when the missile struck nearby and the shelter began falling apart.

“Their mother was screaming, ‘The children are dead, the children are dead,’ ” he said in a telephone interview. “I went and I saw them covered in blood.”

The last fatalities in Gaza from an Israeli airstrike in response to rocket fire occurred in October, when a pregnant Palestinian woman and a toddler were killed. But such deaths have been rare since a cease-fire ended the fighting in 2014, and the Gaza Strip had remained largely quiet.

A.  Why not "allegedly killed"?

B.  Why not "according to a Palestinian official"?  Or better, "a "Hamas official"?

C.  Why no mention of any or no casualties or damage on the Israeli side?

D.  At least it was noted that the target was a Hamas base.

E.  But why not note that Israeli airstrikes that kill, and the reason for deaths being "rare" if at all, are because...Hamas rarely fires rockets at Israeli civilian targets?

^