Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

April 5, 2009

KBRM loses appeal about cartoon

On Jan. 11, the Sunday Star Times published a cartoon by Bromhead that showed an Israeli soldier shooting at Palestinians, saying ‘Ten innocents, one Hamas... Twenty innocents, Two Hamas...’ KBRM asked that the newspaper publish a correction with the true ratio (or at least a range). When the editor refused, we appealed to the Press Council. The Press council ruling read as follows:

Mr Murphy — and Mr Brooks — are correct: cartoonists and columnists are afforded more latitude in their work than reporters. It is widely understood that such work comprises the opinion of the cartoonist or writer. It is not unusual for a cartoonist to use hyperbole.
The issue of accuracy in relation to the figures cited in the cartoon is impossible to resolve. However a cartoonist is entitled to make the point that civilian Palestinians of Gaza suffered heavy losses.
In a generalised cartoon, the figures beginning, ‘Ten innocents...’ are unlikely to have been taken by anyone as an exact count or ratio of Palestinian civilian and Hamas deaths resulting from the Israeli incursion.
The cited Press Council comment, Case 2045, referred to a complaint in relation to disputed issues arising out of clear and repeated newspaper error. The observation, that important disputed facts should be corrected, sits in a markedly different context from a cartoonist's opinion about inequities of suffering in a global conflict.
Conclusion. The cartoonist had the right to highlight his views about civilian deaths incurred in an international conflict. The complaints are therefore not upheld.

KBRM then wrote to the cartoonist:

Dear Mr Bromhead,
You are probably aware that KBRM's request for a correction to your cartoon about Israel (‘10 innocents... 1 Hamas’, Jan. 11) was not granted by the SST or upheld by the Press Council.

Of course I can understand how you would come to that view, given the press coverage in the NZ press. However, if you will read the articles cited below, you will learn that in all probability the ratio was in the other direction; that is, fewer than half of the deaths in Gaza were civilians. You will also learn that Israel made every effort to reduce civilian casualties, something which is not easy when your enemy has no uniforms and operates from civilian areas (google ‘Kemp discusses idf’).

I also would like to call to your attention to ongoing attacks on Israeli civilians and children by Palestinians, like the terrorist who snuck into a bedroom to kill sleeping children (google ‘axe-wielding Palestinian’)?

Perhaps you would consider drawing a cartoon showing this side of the story. For example, you could show an Israeli soldier and a Hamas militant firing at each other, with the Israeli soldier standing in front of women and children (to protect them) and the Palestinian standing behind women and children while shouting ‘Civilian casualties, civilian casualties!’ But I'm sure you could think of better ideas.

Sincerely,
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast

P.S. I know of only two reports that purport to be name-by-name analyses. One is by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (google pchr 926 civilians) and the other is by the Israeli Defence Force (google ‘1,166 names of Palestinian dead’). (Note: I give google directions rather than web addresses because I think they're easier to use.)

The first of these reported 65% civilian fatalities (about 2-to-1), and the second found about a 30% rate (about 1-to-2). The question is, which to believe? In deciding, you might note that Palestinians have been known to exaggerate in the past, as in the Deir Yassin and Jenin ‘massacres’, or google Pallywood. In fact, I did my own analysis of the PCHR report and found a significant discrepancy: For age groups that were clearly civilian (0-11 and 60+), about 50% were male, as one would expect, but for ages 15-59, 92% were male! What explanation could there be other than that most of them were engaged in militant activities, as was found in the Israeli report?

If you will look at these articles, I believe they will convince you (a) that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza was very far from the 10-to-1 ratio given in your cartoon, and (b) that Israel, acting in self-defence, did its best to minimise them.