Journalists should be in the reporting business, not in the moralizing and preaching business. Once they take sides, they lose credibility even if their complaints are correct, which is not the case with Israel: 1. "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" The IDF of course had plans, as every army does. But Hizballah is a threat and annoyance which needs to be dealt with, although more cleverly than Israel did. 2. "slaughter of civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza" Most of the civilian killed were by air, as unintended victims, not by troops. The Air Force should be more careful, but we are not talking about a large nymber of civilians in absolute terms. 3. "the IDF's continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah." There are hardly any more attacks. And while Hizballah won the war by points, one should not call it a "defeat" for Israel. The strong language shows lack of objectivity. 4. "calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa" If the NUJ complains about Apartheid, they should say so and describe what they mean. But talking about Gaza and Lebanon is not talking about Apartheid and does not call for anti-Apartheid measures. Shows bias.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Burkina Faso commission says Kabore wins presidency (AP)
from the article: Guardian editor condemns U.K. journalists' call to boycott Israel