Credibility

Joel Greenberg, who is very anti-Jewish presence beyond the Green Line, of Jerusalem Post, Chicago Tribune and NYTimes infame [that my new word instead of infamy], is now at the Washington Post.

Here is the first few paragraphs of his today's report:

IN NUR SHAMS REFUGEE CAMP, WEST BANK

Moving quietly through the alleys of this ramshackle neighborhood, the Israeli soldiers forced their way into Iyad Abu Shilbaya's home in the early morning hours under cover of darkness.

A Hamas operative who had been detained repeatedly by the Palestinian Authority and imprisoned for two years by Israel, Abu Shilbaya was one of more than a dozen people whose homes were raided during a sweep of arrests in the Nur Shams camp outside the town of Tulkarm on Friday.

But Abu Shilbaya was not arrested. In an encounter in his bedroom, the details of which remain murky, he was fatally shot at close range, prompting vows of revenge by Hamas and condemnation from the Palestinian Authority, which said the killing "undermines the credibility" of recently renewed negotiations with Israel.

You got that, right?

Here:

the killing "undermines the credibility" of recently renewed negotiations with Israel

Excuse me, Joel, but Hamas is a terror group which doesn't negotiate and in fact, is trying to get Abbas out of the talks whether by killing Jews or undermining the Palestinian Authority. They are not at all interested in negotiations, no matter what happens.

So, what is this BS about "credibility"? They have none to begin with.

Why are you, indirectly, lending them credibility?

This is journalism?

You mention some of this later but it could have been worked into that paragraph so as to be relevant information


P.S.

This, "Cherry soldiers", is silly.

We have a unit called Duvdevan, which translates as "cherry", but to write as you did completely misleads the reader. At least it should have been "soldiers of the 'Cherry' unit" or simply the "elite Duvdevan (Cherry) unit".


- - -