The New York Times, a "real" newspaper to some, goes a bit further, in "Palestinian bomber kills only himself near Israeli bus station", Steven Erlanger reports:

The raid was aimed, Israel said, at a cell of Islamic Jihad that had planned the two most recent suicide bombings, in Tel Aviv on Feb. 25 and in Netanya on July 12, in which 10 Israelis died. But the raid was controversial in its timing; the main target, Ribhi Amara, escaped; and at least one innocent teenager was killed in the gunfire, according to an article about an internal army investigation in the newspaper Maariv on Sunday.

The army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, reportedly criticized the "lack of sensitivity" of the timing of the operation, saying, according to Maariv, "In timing like this we must be much more sensitive, to act only against ticking bombs and do everything possible to refrain from killing wanted people." He was not informed of the operation in advance to approve it, as he should have been, the newspaper said.

A Palestinian witness, Abdelkarim Dalbah, told The New York Times last week that the Israelis had fired first and used heavy firepower, an account supported in the Maariv report. Palestinians say three teenagers who were killed had only loose ties to militant groups; the Israelis say four of the dead were militants.

There was also a suggestion that a local leader of Islamic Jihad who was killed in the operation, Adel Abu Khalil, 26, was providing inside intelligence to the Palestinian Authority.

After the raid, Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, promised revenge. On Sunday, Jibril Rajoub, an Abbas aide who was once in charge of Palestinian preventive security for the West Bank, said, "Whoever gave the order for the Tulkarm massacre is responsible for the attack in Beersheba."

This is extraordinary. The lengths to which the Times goes to discredit the Israeli account is astounding.

Using the "reported" statement of the Chief of Staff that the raid was inappropriate is poor sourcing at its best (or rather worst.)

I checked out three other Israeli sources on the Be'er Sheva bombing: the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and Ha'aretz. The only reason that Erlanger gives for believing the article in Ma'ariv that, for now, has been ignored by 3 other newspapers is that an element of the Ma'ariv account is supported by Palestinian eyewitness! (And we know how reliable they are!)

Later on in the article Erlanger writes about the question surrounding Israel's withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor and handing the job of managing its security to Egypt:

The cabinet vote approving Egyptian patrols at the Gaza border is important for the longer term. Israel wants international recognition of the end of its occupation of Gaza, but one obvious condition is to withdraw all of its troops - including those on the eight-mile border with Egypt, known as the Philadelphi route.

Israeli troops there are highly exposed, but serve to try to stop smuggling of arms, people and other contraband from Egypt, much of which comes through tunnels under the border. Israel has had only modest success in that effort, and Egypt, which has intelligence about the families that run the tunnels as a business, is thought to have a clear national interest in keeping Gaza from becoming a haven for terrorism.

Still, people in the Israeli right - in other words, in the conservative wing of Mr. Sharon's conservative Likud Party, including his rival Benjamin Netanyahu and the legislator Yuval Steinitz - have regularly criticized any deal with Egypt. They argue that even 750 border guards will open the way to the remilitarization of the Sinai and could undermine Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, which limits the number of armed men Egypt can have in the Sinai.

The new agreement with Egypt, which is an amendment to the peace treaty, will be voted on in a special session of Parliament. The discussion could be contentious, but the amendment is expected to pass. It was passed Sunday by the cabinet 18 to 2.

Mr. Netanyahu is expected to openly challenge Mr. Sharon for the leadership of Likud this week.

First of all Erlanger presents a paradox: Israel has had only modest success in that effort [to control arms coming into Gaza] and that "Egypt ... is thought to have a clear national interest in keeping Gaza from becoming a haven for terrorism." So then why hasn't Egypt done more to stop the tunnels until now. Erlanger here is finessing an issue: Egypt's trustworthiness in helping Israel stop arms smuggling into Gaza by presenting an Egyptian "interest" - that hasn't been demonstrated by Egypt's actions - as a reason Israel should trust Egypt.

He compounds this by ascribing doubts as to the wisdom of inviting 750 Egyptian soldiers to Israel's "right" or as he put it "...the conservative wing of Mr. Sharon's conservative Likud Party" (it's odd to describe a party that won a plurality of seats in the last election as conservative rather than mainstream but let that slide for now.) Why does Erlanger portray objections to the renewed armed Egyptian presence in the Sinai as simply a cynical political move designed to boost the prospects of Binyamin Netanyahu's electoral chances?

In Ha'aretz, an article reporting that PM Sharon's national security advisor Gen. Giora Eiland plans to step down, Amir Oren reports:

At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Eiland said there were significant flaws in the the proposal to bring an Egyptian military force into Rafah, before Israel has decided whether to abandon the Philadelphi route and without receiving anything from the Egyptians and Palestinians in return.

This objection can hardly be said to be partisan as the article subsequently tells us:

However, unlike Dayan and Halevy, who ended their term after falling out with Sharon, Eiland and the premier have maintained correct working relations, despite professional disagreements and political confidants' efforts to come between them.

Let's just review: In the course of a single article Steven Erlanger of the New York Times cites an unsupported report that questions whether Israel was right in defending itself, then fails to do similar digging when ascribing objections to an increased Egyptian presence in the Sinai to political motives. This is not reporting. This is propaganda; plain and simple.
Technorati Tag: Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.