The Problem with AP’s Reporting of Civilian Casualties in Gaza

Feb. 18 2015

Citing new evidence it claims to have collected, the Associated Press recently repeated its charge that during last summer’s war in Gaza, Israeli airstrikes “killed mostly civilians.” Richard Behar argues that these statistics are little more than Hamas propaganda:

The article in AP is focused on “a particular subset of the fatalities—those killed while inside houses ostensibly targeted by the Israelis,” defense analyst [Eado] Hecht told me on Friday. “I write ‘ostensibly’ targeted by Israelis because something in the order of 2,600 Palestinian rockets and mortar bombs were fired deliberately (most of them) or by mistake into Palestinian residential areas. The deliberate fire [was directed at] Israeli soldiers in that area—but without warning local civilians to move out.” . . .

[N]o one knows exactly how many houses were targeted by the Israelis, but UN studies . . . claim severe damage to thousands of buildings (one figure is 20,000 destroyed or severely damaged). The percentage of civilians killed in 247 houses alone [cited by the AP] is only indicative of someone choosing specific houses to count while ignoring other houses that did not suit the specific slant they were trying to give. Especially since the total count of children, women, and elderly men given by the Palestinians themselves is a total of 943. In other words, in just over one percent of a total of some 20,000 buildings destroyed or severely damaged were inflicted 508 of all the 943 [civilian casualties claimed by Palestinian sources].

Read more at Algemeiner

More about: AP, Civilian casualties, Israel & Zionism, Israeli military, Media, Protective Edge

Kuwait Should Be the Next Country to Make Peace with Israel

Feb. 13 2025

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.

Read more at Jerusalem Strategic Tribune

More about: Abraham Accords, Kuwait